Yes / The implementation of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can be challenging, with reports of surgical robots being underused. This raises questions about differences compared with open and laparoscopic surgery and how best to integrate RAS into practice. Objectives: To (1) contribute to reporting of the ROLARR (RObotic versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal cancer) trial, by investigating how variations in the implementation of RAS and the context impact outcomes; (2) produce guidance on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation; (3) produce guidance on how to ensure effective teamwork; and (4) provide data to inform the development of tools for RAS. Design: Realist process evaluation alongside ROLARR. Phase 1 – a literature review identified theories concerning how RAS becomes embedded into practice and impacts on teamwork and decision-making. These were refined through interviews across nine NHS trusts with theatre teams. Phase 2 – a multisite case study was conducted across four trusts to test the theories. Data were collected using observation, video recording, interviews and questionnaires. Phase 3 – interviews were conducted in other surgical disciplines to assess the generalisability of the findings. Findings: The introduction of RAS is surgeon led but dependent on support at multiple levels. There is significant variation in the training provided to theatre teams. Contextual factors supporting the integration of RAS include the provision of whole-team training, the presence of handpicked dedicated teams and the availability of suitably sized operating theatres. RAS introduces challenges for teamwork that can impact operation duration, but, over time, teams develop strategies to overcome these challenges. Working with an experienced assistant supports teamwork, but experience of the procedure is insufficient for competence in RAS and experienced scrub practitioners are important in supporting inexperienced assistants. RAS can result in reduced distraction and increased concentration for the surgeon when he or she is supported by an experienced assistant or scrub practitioner. Conclusions: Our research suggests a need to pay greater attention to the training and skill mix of the team. To support effective teamwork, our research suggests that it is beneficial for surgeons to (1) encourage the team to communicate actions and concerns; (2) alert the attention of the assistant before issuing a request; and (3) acknowledge the scrub practitioner’s role in supporting inexperienced assistants. It is beneficial for the team to provide oral responses to the surgeon’s requests. Limitations: This study started after the trial, limiting impact on analysis of the trial. The small number of operations observed may mean that less frequent impacts of RAS were missed. Future work: Future research should include (1) exploring the transferability of guidance for effective teamwork to other surgical domains in which technology leads to the physical or perceptual separation of surgeon and team; (2) exploring the benefits and challenges of including realist methods in feasibility and pilot studies; (3) assessing the feasibility of using routine data to understand the impact of RAS on rare end points associated with patient safety; (4) developing and evaluating methods for whole-team training; and (5) evaluating the impact of different physical configurations of the robotic console and team members on teamwork. / National Inst for Health Research (NIHR)