Inventing our future: Training the next generation of surgeon innovators
Section snippets
Regional advantage: Why Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Stanford University?
Observers have discussed and indeed codified the notion of “regional advantages.”4 Fifty percent of the successful medical device companies in this country are located within a 50-mile radius of the Stanford University campus. More than 100 startups translating scientific discoveries to bedside solutions have been the collective output of Stanford students, residents, and faculty over the years. The historic success, even in the serendipitous process of medical device innovation, is based on
Children: The orphans of innovation
Historically, technology development for pediatric problems has been a low priority. In general, the FDA barriers are high, markets are small, and the payor mix is poor. Most pediatric surgical technology has trickled down from adult-engineered devices and tools. For all of us privileged to care for children, such a set of conditions suggests a need and indeed an obligation. We believe that the high demands of a pediatric solution are just as likely to benefit an adult market; this has helped
Why now?
The recently published NIH roadmap has highlighted a fundamental gap between basic scientific discovery and translation into patient care application. The roadmap challenges our universities and all of us to discover ways to close this gap. These training programs are designed to do just that.
We believe that the knowledge and skills of medical device innovation constitute a discipline that can be taught and mentored. Based on decades of personal experience and 5 years of specific training
Case study 1
Stanford surgical resident Russell Woo, MD, joined three engineers in the 2003 Biodesign Innovation Program (Figure 6). At the end of 10 months, the outputs included: eight invention disclosures, three provisional patents, one business plan, a biodesign database and manual; and four innovators educated in the process.
The team was recognized as first runner-up in the Stanford BASES Competition and received funding from the Office of Technology Licensing at Stanford University as well as the
Application and selection process
Because of the need to reach a highly selective group of postdoctoral surgeons and engineers (with a demonstrated desire and capability in innovation), we recruit both broadly and specifically. Announcements, letters, and posters are sent to the chairs of the 100 biomedical engineering departments in the United States as well as other key laboratories in electrical, mechanical, chemical engineering, and computer science departments. In a similar fashion, the top 50 surgical residencies are
Boot camp
The training program begins in July with an 8-week, high-intensity “boot camp.” The morning of each day is devoted to lectures in three broad categories:
- 1
Introduction to clinical science, technology, and procedures; all team members receive HIPAA certification;
- 2
Overview of biomedical engineering science and technology; and
- 3
Introduction to the medical device innovation process; a preview of the steps to come, including the basics of needs finding and characterization, brainstorming, prototyping,
Teaching responsibility
The trainees serve as teaching assistants for a Stanford graduate class (Bioengineering 372 A, B) offered in the Winter and Spring terms. Classes are composed of graduate and postdoctoral students from the Schools of Engineering, Medicine, and Business. The class is divided into teams of three to four students who take one of the trainee’s needs forward in a needs validation and invention sequence. Our trainees serve as high level teaching assistants/mentors for two or three teams, thus
Second year training schedule (Figure 13)
As with all postdoctoral programs, the goal of the Surgical Innovation Training Program postdoctoral experience is for our trainees to achieve independent status for the next stage of their career. In this arena, the essential training required is direct experience in taking concepts through prototyping and early stage testing and, in the best case, bringing it forward into clinical practice. Just as with laboratory research, independent status requires independent work.
The second year provides
References (8)
- et al.
American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS)A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2001) - et al.
Principles of innovationSection 2: transforming clinical needs into visible inventions
- et al.
Innovation and interventional cardiology: looking back, thinking ahead
- et al.
Design in BME: challenges, issues, and opportunities
Ann Biomed Eng
(2006)
Cited by (18)
ESVS Volodos Lecture: Innovations and the Hippocratic Oath
2018, European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :In the United States, medical innovations face major challenges. The most important of these are the sky rocketing costs, difficulty obtaining funding, complicated regulations and bureaucracy, inertia in the academic environment and a lack of mentorship.29 One of the main goals of the Fogarty institute for Innovation is to mentor young innovators to develop technologies that lower costs and improve patients' lives.30
Innovating for quality and value: Utilizing national quality improvement programs to identify opportunities for responsible surgical innovation
2015, Seminars in Pediatric SurgeryCitation Excerpt :The use of large quality-based programs to identify opportunities for device and process development represents collaboration between the growing surgical disciplines of safety and quality, and surgical technology innovation. Krummel et al.12 describe innovation as “the process whereby scientific discoveries which could solve clinical problems are driven forward across the translational gap into clinical practice.” Traditionally, this process has not been viewed as being within the core mission of academic institutions and therefore often required the ingenuity and resourcefulness of lone surgeon innovators.
Biodesign process and culture to enable pediatric medical technology innovation
2015, Seminars in Pediatric SurgeryCitation Excerpt :In response to the need to train young innovators, Drs. Paul Yock and Josh Makower began a systematic training program in medical device innovation called Stanford Biodesign. The Biodesign fellowship is a constantly evolving 10-month program that teaches need-based innovation (Figure 1) consisting of needs identification, needs filtration, concept generation, concept filtration, and early stage implementation of the inventions.1,3 Every year, international engineers, physicians, business graduates, and scientists with an interest in medical technology innovation are invited apply to the Stanford Biodesign Program.
Challenges and climate of business environment and resources to support pediatric device development
2015, Seminars in Pediatric SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Specialized fellowship programs do exist that focus solely on surgical device innovation and have been hugely successful. However, these programs are limited in number.12 Formal business training could be offered in medical school with an increase in MD/MBA programs.
International innovations in pediatric minimally invasive surgery: The Argentine experience
2012, Journal of Pediatric SurgeryInventing in orthopaedics: From idea to marketed device
2008, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery