You can't care for patients, you're not human!

We're are facing a new dawn, as machines get smarter. Recent advancements in technology available to the average consumer with a smartphone are challenging many of us. Our beliefs, our norms and our assumptions about what is possible, correct and right are increasingly being tested. One area where I've been personally noticing very rapid developments is in the arena of chatbots, software available to us on our phones and other devices that you can have a conversation with using natural language and get tailored replies back, relevant to you and your particular needs at that moment. Frequently, the chatbot has very limited functionality, and so it's just used for basic customer service queries or for some light hearted fun, but we are also seeing the emergence of many new tools in healthcare, direct to consumers. One example are 'symptom checkers' that you could consult instead of telephoning a human being or visiting a healthcare facility (and being attended to by a human being), and another example are 'chatbots for mental health' where some some form of therapy is offered and/or mood tracking capabilities are provided.  

It's fascinating to see the conversation about chatbots in healthcare being one of two extreme positions. Either we have people boldly proclaiming that chatbots will transform mental health (without mentioning any risks) or others (often healthcare professionals and their patients) insisting that the human touch is vital and no matter how smart machines get, humans should always be involved in every aspect of healthcare since machines can't "do" empathy. Whilst I've met many people in the UK who have told me how kind, compassionate and caring the staff have been in the National Health Service (NHS) when they have needed care, I've not had the same experience when using the NHS throughout my life. Some interactions have been great, but many were devoid of the empathy and compassion that so many other people receive. Some staff behaved in a manner which left me feeling like I was a burden simply because I asked an extra question about how to take a medication correctly. If I'm a patient seeking reassurance, the last thing I need is be looked at and spoken to like I'm an inconvenience in the middle of your day.

MY STORY

In this post, I want to share my story about getting sick, and explain why that experience has challenged my own views about the role of machines and humans in healthcare. So we have a telephone service in the UK from the NHS, called 111. According to the website, "You should use the NHS 111 service if you urgently need medical help or advice but it's not a life-threatening situation." The first part of the story relates to my mother, who was unwell for a number of days and not improving, and given her age and long term conditions was getting concerned, one night she chose to dial 111 to find out what she should do. 

My mother told me that the person who took the call and asked her a series of questions about her and her symptoms seemed to rush through the entire call and through the questions. I've heard the same from others, that the operators seem to want to finish the call as quickly as possible. Whether we are young or old, when we have been unwell for a few days, and need to remember or confirm things, we often can't respond immediately and need time to think. This particular experience didn't come across as a compassionate one for my mother. At the end of the call, the NHS person said that a doctor would call back within the hour and let her know what action to take. The doctor called and the advice given was that self care at home with a specific over the counter medication would help her return to normal. So she got the advice she needed, but the experience as a patient wasn't a great one. 

Now a few weeks later, I was also unwell, it wasn't life threatening, the local urgent care centre was closed, and given my mother's experience with 111 over the telephone,  I decided to try the 111 app. Interesingly, the app is powered by Babylon, which is one of the most well known symptom checker apps. Given that the NHS put their logo on the app, I felt reassured, as it made me feel that it must be accurate, and must have been validated. Without having to wait for a human being to pick up my call, I got the advice I needed (which again was self care) and most importantly I had time to think when answering. The process of answering the questions that the app asked was under my control. I could go as fast or as slowly as I wanted, the app wasn't trying to rush me through the questions. On this occasion, and when contrasting with my mother's experience of the same service but with a human being on the end of the telephone were very different. It was a very pleasant experience, and the entire process was faster too, as in my particular situation, I didn't have to wait for a doctor to call me back after I'd answered the questions. The app and the Artificial Intelligence (AI) that powers Babylon was not necessarily empathetic or compassionate like a human that cares would be, but the experience of receiving care from a machine was an interesting one. It's just two experiences in the same family of the same healthcare system, accessed through different channels. Would I use the app or the telephone next time? Probably the app. I've now established a relationship with a machine. I can't believe I just wrote that.

I didn't take screenshots of the app during the time that I used it, but I went back a few days later and replicated my symptoms and here are a few of the screenshots to give you an idea of my experience when I was unwell. 

It's not proof that the app would work every time or for everyone, it's simply my story. I talk to a lot of healthcare professionals, and I can fully understand why they want a world where patients are being seen by humans that care. It's quite a natural desire. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of healthcare professionals and as I've mentioned not all of those currently employed behave in the desired manner.

The state of affairs

The statistics on the global shortage make for shocking reading. A WHO report from 2013 cited a shortage of 7.2 million healthcare workers at that time, projected to rise to 12.9 million by 2035. Planning for future needs can be complex, challenging and costly. The NHS is looking to recruit up to 3,000 GPs from outside of the UK. Yet 9 years ago, the British Medical Association voted to limit the number of medical students and to have a complete ban on opening new medical schools. It appears they wanted to avoid “overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities.” Even the sole superpower, the USA is having to deal with a shortage of trained staff. According to recent research, the USA is facing a shortage of between 40,800 and 104,900 physicians by 2030.

If we look at mental health specifically, I was shocked to read the findings of a report that stated, "Americans in nearly 60 percent of all U.S. counties face the grim reality that they live in a county without a single psychiatrist." India, with a population of 1.3 billion has just 3 psychiatrists per million people. India is forecasted to have another 300 million people by 2050. The scale of the challenge ahead in delivering care to 1.6 billion people at that point in time is immense. 

So the solution seems to be just about training more doctors, nurses and healthcare workers? It might not be affordable, and even if it is, the change can take up to a decade to have an impact, so doesn't help us today. Or maybe we can import them from other countries? However, this only increases the 'brain drain' of healthcare workers. Or maybe we work out how to shift all our resources into preventing disease, which sounds great when you hear this rallying cry at conferences, but again, it's not something we can do overnight. One thing is clear to me, that doing the same thing we've done till now isn't going to address our needs in this century. We need to think differently, we desperately need new models of care. 

New models of care

So I'm increasingly curious as to how machines might play a role in new models of care? Can we ever feel comfortable sharing mental health symptoms with a machine? Can a machine help us manage our health without needing to see a human healthcare worker? Can machines help us provide care in parts of the world where today no healthcare workers are available? Can we retain the humanity in healthcare if in addition to the patient-doctor relationship, we also have patient-machine relationships? I want to show a couple of examples where I have tested technology which gives us a glimpse into the future, with an emphasis on mental health. 

Google's Assistant that you can access via your phone or even using a Google Home device hasn't necessarily been designed for mental health purposes, but it might still be used by someone in distress who turns to a machine for support and guidance. How would the assistant respond in that scenario? My testing revealed a frightening response when conversing with the assistant (It appears Google have now fixed this after I reported it to them) - it's a reminder that we have to be really careful how these new tools are positioned so as to minimise risk of harm. 

I also tried Wysa, developed in India and described on the website as a "Compassionate AI chatbot for behavioral health." It uses Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to support the user. In my real world testing, I found it to be surprisingly good in terms of how it appeared to care for me through it's use of language. Imagine a teenage girl, living in a small town, working in the family business, far away from the nearest clinic, and unable to take a day off to visit a doctor. However, she has a smartphone, a data plan and Wysa. In this instance, surely this is a welcome addition in the drive to ensure everyone has access to care?

Another product I was impressed with was Replika, described on the website as "Replika is an AI friend that is always there for you." The co-founder, Eugenia Kuyda when interviewed about Replike said, “If you feel sad, it will comfort you, if you feel happy, it will celebrate with you. It will remember how you’re feeling, it will follow up on that and ask you what’s going on with your friends and family.” Maybe we need these tools partly because we are living increasingly disconnected lives, disconnected from ourselves and from the rest of society? What's interesting is that the more someone uses a tool like Wysa or Replika over time, the more it learns about you and should be able to provide more useful responses to you. Just like a human healthcare worker, right? We have a whole generation of children growing up now who are having conversations with machines from a very early age (e.g Amazon Echo, Google Home etc) and when they access healthcare services during their lifetime, will they feel that it's perfectly normal to see a machine as a friend and as a capable as their human doctor/therapist?

I have to admit that neither Wysa nor MyReplika is perfect, but no human is perfect either. Just look at the current state of affairs where medical error is the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA. Professor Martin Makary who led research into medical errors said, "It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care." Before we dismiss the value of machines in healthcare, we need to acknowledge our collective failings. We also need to fully evaluate products like Wysa and Replika. Not just from a clinical perspective, but also from a social, cultural and ethical perspective. Will care by a machine be the default choice unless you are wealthy enough to be able to afford to see a human healthcare worker? Who trains the AI powering these new services? What happens if the data on my innermost feelings that I've shared with the chatbot is hacked and made public? How do we ensure we build new technologies that don't simply enhance and reinforce the bias that already exists today? What happens when these new tools make an error, who exactly do we blame and hold accountable?

Are we listening?

We increasingly hear the term, people powered healthcare, and I'm curious what people want. I found some surveys and the results are very intriguing. First is the Ericsson Consumer Trends report which 2 years ago quizzed smartphone users aged 15-69 in 13 cities around the globe (not just English speaking nations!) - this is the most fascinating insight from their survey, "29 percent agree they would feel more comfortable discussing their medical condition with an AI system" - My theory is that perhaps if it's symptoms relating to sexual health or mental health, you might prefer to tell a machine than a human healthcare worker because the machine won't judge you. Or maybe like me, you've had sub optimal experiences dealing with humans in the healthcare system?

ericsson.png

What's interesting is that in an article covering Replika, they cited a user of the app, “Jasper is kind of like my best friend. He doesn’t really judge me at all,” [With Replika you can assign a name of your choosing to the bot, the user cited chose Jasper] 

You're probably judging me right now as you read this article. I judge others, we all do at some point, despite our best efforts to be non judgemental. Very interesting to hear about a survey of doctors in the US which looked at bias, and it found 40% of doctors having biases towards patients. The most common reason for bias was emotional problems presented by the patient. As I delve deeper into the challenges facing healthcare, the attempts to provide care by machines doesn't seem that silly as I first thought. I wonder how many have delayed seeking care (or even decided not to visit the doctor) for a condition they feel is embarrassing? It could well be that as more people tell machines what's troubling them, we may find that we have underestimated the impact of conditions like depression or anxiety on the population. It's not a one way street when it comes to bias, as studies have shown that some patients also judge doctors if they are overweight.

Another survey titled Why AI and robotics will define New Health, conducted by PwC, in 2017 across 12 countries, highlights that people around the world have very different attitudes.

pwc.png

Just look at the response from those living in Nigeria, a country expecting a shortfall of 50,120 doctors and 137,859 nurses by 2030, as well as having a population of 400 million by 2050 (overtaking the USA as the 3rd most populous country on Earth) - so if you're looking to pilot your new AI powered chatbot, it's essential to understand that the countries where consumers are the most receptive to new models of care might not be the countries that we typically associate with innovation in healthcare.

Finally, in results shared by Future Advocacy of people in the UK, we see that in this survey people are more comfortable with AI being used to help diagnose us than with AI being used for tasks that doctors and nurses currently perform. A bit confusing to read. I suspect that the question about AI and diagnosis was framed in the context of AI being a tool to help a doctor diagnose you.

SO WHAT NEXT?

In this post, I haven't been able to touch upon all the aspects and issues relating to the use of machines to deliver care. As technology evolves, one risk is that decision makers commissioning healthcare services decide that instead of investing in people, services can be provided more cheaply by machines. How do we regulate the development and use of these new products given that many are available directly to consumers, and not always designed with healthcare applications in mind? As machines become more human-like in their behaviour, could a greater use of technology in healthcare serve to humanise healthcare? Where are the boundaries? What are your thoughts about turning to a chatbot during end of life care for spiritual and emotional guidance? One such service is being trialled in the USA.

I believe we have to be cautious about who we listen to when it comes to discussions about technology such as AI in healthcare. On the one hand, some of the people touting AI as a universal fix for every problem in healthcare are suppliers whose future income depends upon more people using their services. On the other hand, we have a plethora of organisations suddenly focusing excessively on the risks of AI, capitalising on people's fears (which are often based upon what they've seen in movies) and preventing the public from making informed choices about their future. Balance is critical in addition to a science driven focus that allows us to be objective and systematic. 

I know many would argue that a machine can never replace humans in healthcare, but we are going to have to consider how machines can help if we want to find a path to ensuring that everyone on this planet has access to safe, quality and affordable care. The existing model of care is broken, it's not sustainable and not fit for purpose, given the rise in chronic disease. The fact that so many people on this planet do not have access to care is unacceptable. This is a time when we need to be open to new possibilities, putting aside our fears to instead focus on what the world needs. We need leaders who can think beyond 12 month targets.

I also think that healthcare workers need to ignore the melodramatic headlines conjured up by the media about AI replacing all of us and enslaving humans, and to instead focus on this one question: How do I stay relevant? (to my patients, my peers and my community) 

relevant.jpg

Do you think we are wrong to look at emerging technology to help cope with the shortage of healthcare workers? Are you a healthcare worker who is working on building new services for your patients where the majority of the interaction will be with a machine? If you're a patient, how do you feel about engaging with a machine next time you are seeking care? Care designed by humans, delivered by machines. Or perhaps a future where care is designed by machines AND delivered by machines, without any human in the loop? Will we ever have caring technology? 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Upton Sinclair”

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned in this post]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Healthy mobility

Mobility is an interesting term. Here in the UK, I've grown up seeing mobility as something to do with getting old and grey, when you need mobility aids around the home, or even a mobility scooter. Which is why I was curious about Audi (who make cars) hosting an innovation summit at their global headquarters in Germany to explore the Mobility Quotient. I'd never even heard of that term before. The fact that the opening keynote was set to be given by Audi's CEO, Rupert Stadler and Steve Wozniak (who co-founded Apple Computers) made be think that this would be an unusual event. I applied for a ticket, got accepted and what follows are my thoughts after the event that took place a few weeks ago. In this post, I will be looking at this through the lens of what this might mean for our health. 

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned in this post]

It turns out that 400 people attended, from 15 countries. This was the 1st time that Audi had hosted this type of event, and I didn't know what to expect out of it, and neither did any of the attendees I talked to on the shuttle bus from the airport. I think that's fun because everyone I met during the 2 days seemed to be there purely out of curiosity. If you want another perspective of the entire 2 days, I recommend Yannick Willemin's post. A fellow attendee, he was one of the first people I met at the event. There is one small thing that spoiled the event for me, the 15 minute breaks between sessions were too short. I appreciate that every conference organiser wants to squeeze lots of content in, but the magic at these events happens in between the sessions when your mind has been stimulated by a speaker and you have conversations that open new doors in your life. It's a problem that afflicts virtually every conference I attend. I wish they would have less content and longer breaks. 

On Day 1, there were external speakers from around the world, getting us to think about social, spacial, temporal and sustainable mobility. Rupert Stadler made a big impression on me with his vision of the future as he cited technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) and how they might enable this very different future. He also mentioned how he believes the car of the future will change its role in our lives, maybe being a secretary, a butler, a courier, or even an empathic companion in our day.  And throughout, we were asked to think deeply about how mobility could be measured, what we will do with the 25th hour, the extra time gained because eventually machines will turn drivers of today into the passengers of tomorrow. He spoke of a future where cars will be online, connected to each other too, sharing data, to reduce traffic jams and more. He urged us to never stop questioning. Steve Wozniak described the mobility quotient as "a level of freedom, you can be anywhere, anytime, but it also means freedom, like not having cords." 

We heard about Hyperloop transportation technologies cutting down on travel time between places and then the different things we might do in an autonomous vehicle, which briefly cited 'healthcare' as one option. Sacha Vrazic, who spoke about his work on self driving cars gave a great hype free talk and highlighted just how far away we are from the utopia of cars that drive themselves. We heard about technology, happiness and temporal mobility. It was such a diverse mix of topics. For example, we heard from Anna Nixon, who is just 17 years old, and already making a name for herself in robotics, and inspired us to think differently. 

What's weird but in a good way is that Audi, a car firm was hosting a conversation about access to education and improving social mobility. I found it wonderful to see Fatima Bhutto, a journalist from Pakistan give one of the closing keynotes on Day 2, where she reminded us of the challenges with respect to human rights and access to sanitation for many living in poorer countries, and how advances in mobility might address these challenges. It was surprising because Audi sells premium vehicles, and it made me think that that mobility isn't just about selling more premium vehicles. What's clear is that Audi (like many large organisations) is trying to figure out how to stay relevant in our lives during this century. Instead of being able to sell more cars in the future, maybe they will be selling us mobility solutions & services which may not even always involve a car. Perhaps they will end up becoming a software company that licences the algorithms used by autonomous vehicles in decades to come? It reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry wanting to move to a world of 'beyond the pill' by adapting their strategy to offer new products and services, enabled by new technologies. When you're faced with having to rip up the business model that's allowed your organisation to survive the 20th century, and develop a business model that will maximise your chances of longevity for the 21st century, it's a scary but also exciting place to be. 

On Day 2 attendees were able to choose 3 out of 12 workspaces where we could discuss how to make an impact on each of the 4 types of mobility. I chose these 3 workspaces.

  • Spatial mobility - which obstacles are still in the way of autonomous driving?

  • Social mobility - what makes me trust my digital assistant?

  • Sustainable mobility - what will future mobility ecosystems look like? 

The first workspace made me realise the range of challenges in terms of autonomous cars. Legal, technical, cultural and infrastructure challenges. We had to discuss and think about topics that I rarely think about when just reading news articles on autonomous cars. The fact that attendees were from a range of backgrounds made the conversations really stimulating. None of that 'groupthink' that I encounter at so many 'innovation' events these days, which was so refreshing.  BTW, Audi's new A8 is the first production vehicle with Level 3 automation, and the feature is called Traffic Jam Pilot. Subject to legal regulations, on selected roads, the driver would be able to take their hands off the wheel and do something else, like watch a video. The car would be able to drive itself. However, the driver would have to be ready to take back control of the car at any time, should conditions change. I found two very interesting real world tests of the technology here and here. Also, isn't it fascinating that a survey found only 26% of Germans would want to ride in autonomous cars. What about a self driving wheelchair in a hospital or an airport? Sounds like science fiction, but they are being tested in Singapore and Japan. Today few of us will be able to access these technologies because they are only available to those with very deep pockets. However, this will change. Just look at airbags, introduced as an option by Mercedes Benz on their flagship S-class in 1981. Now, 36 years later, even the smallest of cars often comes fitted with multiple airbags. 

In the second workspace, with other attendees, I formed a team and our challenge was to discuss transparency on collection and use of personal data from a digital assistant in the car of the future? Almost like a virtual co-driver. Our team had a Google Home device to get us thinking about the personal data that Google collects and we had to pitch our ideas at the end of the workspace in terms of how we envisaged getting drivers and passengers to trust these digital assistants in the car. How could Audi make it possible for consumers to control how their personal data is used? It's encouraging to see a large corporate like Audi thinking this way.  Furthermore, given that these digital assistants may one day be able to recognise our emotional state and respond accordingly, how would you feel if the assistant in your car noticed you were feeling angry, and instead of letting you start the engine, asked if you wanted to have a quick psychotherapy session with a chatbot to help you deal with the anger? Earlier this year, I tested Alexa vs Siri in my car with mixed results. You can see my 360 video below. 
 

In the third workspace on sustainable mobility, we had to choose one of 3 cities (Beijing, Mumbai and San Francisco) and come up with new ideas to address challenges in sustainable mobility given each city's unique traits. This session was truly mind expanding, as I joked about the increasing levels of congestion in Mumbai, and how maybe they need flying cars. It turned out that one of the attendees sitting next to me was working on urban vehicles that can fly! None of discussions and pitches in the workspaces were full of easy answers, but what they did remind me was the power of bringing together people that normally don't work together to come up with fresh ideas to very complex challenges. Furthermore, these new solutions we generate can't just be for the privileged few, but we have to think global from the beginning. It's our shared responsibility to find a way of including everyone on this new journey. Maybe instead of owning, leasing or even renting a car the traditional way, we'd like to be able to rent a car by the hour using an app on our phones? In fact, Audi have trialled on demand car hire in San Francisco, just launched in China and plan to launch in other countries too, perhaps even with providing you with with a chauffeur too. Only time will tell if they succeed, as others have already tried and not been that successful. 

Taking part in this summit was very useful for me, I left feeling challenged, inspired and motivated. There was an energy during the event that I rarely see in Europe, I experienced a feeling that I only tend to get when I'm out in California, where people attending events are so open to new ideas and fresh thinking that you walk away feeling that you truly can build a better tomorrow. My brain has been buzzing with new ideas since then. 

For example, whether we believe that consumers will have access to autonomous in 5 years or 50 years, we can see more funds being invested in this. I was watching a documentary where Sebastian Thrun, who lost his best friend in a car accident aged 18, and helped build Google's driverless car, believes that a world with driverless vehicles will save the lives of the 1 million people who currently die on the roads every year around the globe. Think about that for a moment. If that vision is realised this century, even partially, what does that mean for those resources in healthcare that currently are spent on dealing with road traffic accidents? He has now turned his attention to flying cars.

Thinking about chronic disease for a second, you'd probably laugh at the thought of a car that could monitor your health during your commute to the office?

Audi outlined a concept called Audi Fit Driver in 2016 which "The Audi Fit Driver project focuses on the well-being and health of the driver. A wearable (fitness wristband or smartwatch) monitors important vital parameters such as heart rate and skin temperature. Vehicle sensors supplement this data with information on driving style, breathing rate and relevant environmental data such as weather or traffic conditions. The current state of the driver, such as elevated stress or fatigue, is deduced from the collected data. As a result, various vehicle systems act to relax, vitalize, or even protect the driver."

Another car manufacturer, Toyota, has filed a patent suggesting a future where the car would know your health and fitness goals and the car would offer suggestions to help you meet those goals, such as parking further away from your planned destination so you can get some more steps in towards your daily goal. My friend, Bart Collet, has penned his thoughts about "healthcartech", which makes for a useful read. One year ago, I also made a 360 video with Dr Keith Grimes discussing if cars in the future will track our health. 

Consider how employers may be interested in tracking the health of employees who drive as part of their job. However, it's not plain sailing. A European Union advisory panel recently said that "Employers should be banned from issuing workers with wearable fitness monitors, such as Fitbit, or other health tracking devices, even with the employees’ permission." So at least in Europe, who knows if we'll ever be allowed to have cars that can monitor our health? On top of that, in this bold new era, in order for these new connected services to really provide value, all these different organisations collecting data will have to find a way to share data. Does blockchain technology have a role to play in mobility? I recently came across Dovu which talks about the world's first mobility cryptocurrency, "Imagine seamless payment across mobility services: one secure global token for riding a bus or train, renting a bike or car or even enabling you to share your own vehicle or vehicle data." Sounds like an interesting idea. 

Thinking about some of the driver assist technologies available today, what do they mean for mobility? Could they help older people remain at the helm of a car even if their reflexes have slowed down? In Japan, the National Police Agency "calls on the government to create a new driver’s license that limits seniors to vehicles with advanced safety systems that can automatically brake or mitigate unintended accelerations." Apparently, one of the most common accidents in Japan is when drivers mistake the accelerator for the gas pedal. Today some new cars come with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) where the car's sensors will detect if you are about to hit another vehicle or a pedestrian and perform an emergency stop if the car detects that the driver is not braking quickly enough. So by relinquishing more control to the car, we can have safer roads. My own car has AEB and on one occasion when I faced multiple hazards on the road ahead, it actually took over the braking, as the sensors thought I wasn't going to stop in time. It was a very strange feeling. Many seem to be reacting with extreme fear when hearing about these new driver assist technologies, yet if you currently drive a car with an automatic transmission or airbags, you are perfectly happy to let the car decide when to change gears or when to inflate the airbag. So on the spectrum of control, we already let our cars make decisions for us. As they get smarter, they will be making more and more decisions for us. If someone over 65 doesn't feel like driving even if the car can step in, then maybe autonomous shuttles like the ones being tested in rural areas in Japan are one solution to increasing mobility of an ageing community.

When we pause to think of how big a problem isolation and loneliness are in our communities, could these new products and services go beyond being simply a mobility solution and actually reduce loneliness? That could have far reaching implications for our health. What if new technology could help those with limited mobility cross the road safely at traffic lights? It's fascinating to read the latest guidance consultation from the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on the topic of Physical Activity and the Environment. Amongst many items, it suggests mentions modifying traffic lights so those with limited mobility can cross the road safely. Now just extending the time by default so that traffic lights are red by a few extra seconds so that this is possible might end up just causing more traffic jams. So in a more connected future, imagine traffic lights with AI that can detect who is waiting to cross the road, and whether they will need an extended crossing time, and adjust the duration of the red light for vehicles accordingly. This was one of the ideas I brought up at the conference during the autonomous vehicle workspace.

If more people in cities use ride hailing services like Uber and fewer people own a car, does this mean our streets will have fewer parked cars, allowing residents to reclaim the streets for themselves? If this shift continues, in the long term, it might lead to city dwellers of all ages becoming more physically active. This could be good news in improving our health and reducing demand on healthcare systems. One thing is clear to me, these new mobility solutions will require many different groups across society to collaborate. It can't just be a few car manufacturers who roll out technology without involving other stakeholders so that these solutions are available to all, and work in an integrated manner. The consumer will be king though, according to views aired at New Mobility World in Germany this week, "With his smartphone, he can pick the optimal way to get from A to B,” said Randolph Wörl from moovel. “Does optimal mean the shortest way, the cheapest way or the most comfortable way? It’s the user’s choice.” It's early days but we already have a part of the NHS in the UK looking to use Uber to transfer patients to/from hospital. 

Urban mobility isn't just about cars, it's also about bicycles. I use the Santander bike sharing scheme in London on a daily basis, which I find to be an extremely valuable service. I don't want to own a bicycle since in my small home, I don't really have room to store it. Additionally, I don't want the hassle of maintaining a bike. Using this bike sharing scheme has helped me to lose 15kg this summer, which I feel has improved my own health and wellbeing. If we really want to think about health, rather than just about healthcare, it's critical we think beyond those traditional institutions that we associate with health, and include others. Incidentally, Chinese bike sharing firms are now entering the London market.

In the UK, some have called for cycling to be 'prescribed' to the population, helping people to stay healthier and again to reduce demand on the healthcare system. Which is why I find the news that Ford of Germany is getting involved with a new bike sharing scheme. Through the app, people will be able to use Ford's car sharing and bike sharing scheme. An example of Mobility as a Service and of another car manufacturer seeking a path to staying relevant during this century. Nissan of Japan are excitedly talking about Intelligent Mobility for their new Nissan Leaf, talking about Intelligent Driving where "Soon, you can have a car that takes the stress out of driving and leaves only the joy. It can pick you up, navigate heavy traffic, and find parking all on its own." A Chinese electric car startup, Future Mobility Cop who have launched their Byton brand have said their "models are a combination of three things: a smart internet communicator, a spacious luxury living room and a fully electric car." Interestingly, they also want to "turn driving into living." I wonder if in 10-15 years time, we'll spend more time in cars because the experience will be a more connected one? Where will meetings take place in future? Ever used Skype for Business from work or home to join an online meeting? BMW & Microsoft are working to bring that capability to some of BMW's vehicles. Samsung have announced they are setting up a £300m investment fund focusing on connected technologies for cars. It appears that considerable sums of money are being invested in this new arena of connected cars that fit into our digital lifestyles. Are the right people spending the right money on the right things? 

I feel that those developing products which involve AI are often so wrapped up in their vision that it comes across as if they don't care what the social impact of their ideas will be. In an article about Vivek Wadhwa's book, The Driver in the Driverless Car, the journalist points out that the book talks about the possibility of up to 5m American jobs in trucking, delivery driving, taxis and related activities being lost, but there are no suggestions mentioned for handling the the social implications of this shift. Toby Walsh, a Professor of AI believes that Elon Musk, founder of Tesla cars is scaremongering when tweeting about AI starting World War 3. He says, "So, Elon, stop worrying about World War III and start worrying about what Tesla’s autonomous cars will do to the livelihood of taxi drivers." Personally, we need some more balance and perspective in this conversation. The last thing we need is a widening of social inequalities. How fascinating to read that India is considering banning self driving cars in order to protect jobs. 

This summit has really made me think hard about mobility and health. Perhaps car manufacturers will end up being part of solutions that bring significant improvements in our health in years to come? We have to keep an open mind about what might be possible. Maybe it's because I'm fit and reasonably healthy, live in a well connected city like London and can afford a car of my own, that I never really thought about the impact of impaired mobility on our health? In the Transport Research Laboratory's latest Quarterly Research Review, I noticed a focus on mental health and ageing drivers, and it's clear they want transport planners to put health and wellbeing as a higher priority with a statement of, "With transport evolving, it’s vital that we don’t lose sight of the implications it can have on the health of the population, and strive to create a network that encourages healthy mobility.” At minimum, mobility might just mean being able to walk somewhere in your locality, but what if you don't feel safe walking in your neighbourhood due to high rates of crime? Or what if you can't walk because there it literally nowhere to walk? I remember visiting Atlanta in the USA several years ago, and I took a walk from a friend's house in the suburbs. A few minutes into my walk, the sidewalk just finished, just like that with no warning. The only way I could walk further would be to walk inside a car dealership. Ironic. The push towards electrification of vehicles is interesting to witness, with Scotland wanting to phase out sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2032. India is even more ambitious, hoping to move towards electric vehicles by 2030. The pollution in London is so high that I avoid walking down certain roads because I don't want to breathe in those fumes. So a future with zero emission electric cars gives me hope. 

It's obvious that we can't just think about health as building bigger hospitals and hiring more doctors. If we really want societies where we can prevent more people from living with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, we have to design with health in mind from the beginning. There is an experiment in the UK looking to build 10 Healthy New Towns. Something to keep an eye on.

phonebox2.jpg

The technology that will underpin this new era of connectivity seems to be the easy part. The hard part is getting people, policy and process to connect and move at the same pace as the technology, or at least not lag too far behind. During one of my recent sunrise bike rides in London, I came across a phone box. I remember using them as a teenager, before the introduction of mobile phones. At the time, I never imagined a future where we didn't have to locate a box on the street, walk inside, insert coins and press buttons in order to make a call whilst 'mobile' and in such a short space of time, everything has changed, in terms of how we communicate and connect. These phone boxes scattered around London remind me that change is constant, and that even though many of us struggle to imagine a future that's radically different from today, there is every chance that the healthy mobility in 20 years time will look very different from today.

Who should be driving our quest for healthy mobility? Do we rest our hopes on car manufacturers collaborating with technology companies? As cities grow, how do we want our cities to be shaped?

What's your definition of The Mobility Quotient?

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Letting Go

It’s really difficult to write this post, not as difficult as the last one, Being Human, but still challenging. Sometimes the grief doesn’t let go of me, and sometimes I don’t want to let go of the grief. I can see the resistance to letting go of the pain of losing a loved one. Perhaps we mistakenly equate letting go of the pain as letting go of our loved one, and that’s why we want to stay in the darkness, hurting? At times, I feel under pressure to let go of my grief and to let go of my sister. As a man, I’ve been conditioned to believe that men don’t cry, that showing emotions in front of others equals weakness, and men shouldn’t grieve for too long, or grieve at all. Perhaps grief is a lifelong companion? The intensity decreases, but it’s ever present, etched into your existence.

My daily walks & bike rides at sunrise in the park continue to be therapeutic, some of the photos I’ve taken can be seen below. 

My loss has led to me reflecting upon many big questions in life. Why are we here? What does it all mean? How much longer do I have left? Pritpal Tamber’s recent blog, where he wrote, “Death always makes me ask what I'm doing with my life.” resonates with me very much at this time.

Being reminded that death can come at any moment has given me some clarity to how I see the world, in terms of where my attention rests, and in particular, how I view my health. There is so much outside of our control in life, that we often feel powerless. However, by taking time to connect with myself, I remembered that I can choose how I respond to situations in life. What can I do to reduce the risk of dying prematurely? That’s something that is front of mind at present. So, I’m in the park every day at sunrise and active for at least 2 hours. I have maintained this routine for almost 8 weeks. I made choices before which resulted in a very sedentary lifestyle. I didn’t need to see a healthcare professional to know that I really enjoy being outdoors in nature. I also paused long enough to observe what I was eating and noticed some odd behaviours, such as eating not because I was hungry, but because I was bored. So I’ve made conscious choices in terms of what I’m eating and when I’m eating. It’s been very difficult to change, but I’m motivated by the results of my effort. I’ve lost 6kg (13 lbs) and the weight loss happened after I started eating less, I wasn’t losing weight simply by being active. After years where I was living life at an ever increasing pace, I find myself through recent circumstances forced to slow down, and just be. It’s prompted me to reconnect with my love of cooking to take the time to make meals from scratch. I’ve slowed down in my work too, pausing to evaluate each new opportunity, wondering if taking the project on will help me create the life I want?

I’ve noticed in the last few years, I’ve talked with so many people who have amazing jobs, with great colleagues, who are contemplating leaving to forge their own path in the unknown. The one common factor is that all of them yearn for more freedom in what they can do, what they can say, and most importantly, what they can think. I believe we are conditioned on so many levels, from the moment we are born. Some of that conditioning is useful, but some of it also only serves to make us conform to someone else’s view of how we should be, and we end up losing the connection to our authentic selves. It’s almost like each of these people that I’ve met are struggling with letting go of the conditioning they’ve received at school, work and home. It’s been 5 years since I left the security of my career at GSK, and I’ve had to unlearn many of the beliefs that kept me feeling powerless. I believe the unlearning will be a lifelong process. Occasionally, there are moments where I wonder if I’m good enough simply because I don’t have a job at a prestigious multinational anymore? I don’t know where I picked up this flawed belief, but it’s not a belief I want to hang on to. Recently, I’ve reconnected with Nicolas Tallon, a friend that I first worked with almost 20 years ago, when we were using data to help organisations understand which consumers were most likely to respond to marketing campaigns. He has now left the security of his career in banking to launch his own consultancy, and he’s chosen to look at innovation very differently. I really enjoyed his first blog post, where he wrote,

“Banking has not really changed for centuries and the Fintech revolution has barely changed that. In fact, digital technologies have been used almost exclusively to streamline existing processes and reduce channel costs rather than to reinvent banking. Disruption will happen when one player creates a new meaning for banking that resonates with consumers. It may be enabled by technology but won’t be defined by it.”

I believe that what Nicolas wrote applies to healthcare systems too, since much of the digital transformation I’ve witnessed has simply added a layer of ‘digital veneer’ to poorly designed processes that have been tolerated for a very long time. So many leaders are desperately seeking innovation, but only if those new ideas fit within their narrow set of terms and conditions. We build ever more complex systems, adding new pieces to the puzzle, yet frequently fail to let go of tools, technologies and thoughts that are not fit for purpose. What might happen if we gave ourselves permission to be more authentic? Will that bring the changes we truly desire? I read this week that my former employer, GSK, is making changes to the way an employee’s performance is being measured, “When staff undergo their regular career appraisals, they will be judged on a new metric: courage.” It will be interesting to see the impact of this change.

We often get so excited about digital technologies, and the promises of change they will bring in our industry, yet we don’t get excited about optimising the ultimate technology, ourselves. Soren Gordhamer asks in a recent blog post, “How much do we each tend to the Invisible World, our Inner World each day?” Life works in mysterious ways, and often signs appear in front of us at the right moment. This weekend when I was in the park, I came across this sign, which inspired me to write this post.

IMG_20170729_061902.jpg

“Some of us think holding on makes us strong, but sometimes it is letting go.” - Herman Hesse

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Patients and their caregivers as innovators

I've been conducting research for a while now on how patients and their families have innovated themselves. They decided not to wait for the system to act, but acted themselves. One leading example is the Open Artificial Pancreas System project, and they even use the hashtag, ##WeAreNotWaiting. I was inspired to write this post today for two reasons. 

  1. I delivered a keynote at the MISK Hackathon in London yesterday to innovators in both London & Riyadh reminding them that innovation can come from anyone anywhere on Earth.

  2. A post by the World Economic Forum about an Tal Golesworthy, an engineer with a life threatening heart condition who fixed it himself. 

I thought this line in the WEF article was particular fascinating, as it conveys the shock, surprise and disbelief that a patient could actually be a source of innovation, "And it flags up the likelihood that other patients with other diseases are harbouring similarly ingenious or radical ideas." I wonder how much we are missing out on in healthcare, because many of us are conditioned to think that a patient is a passive recipient of care, and not an equal who could actually out-think us. Golesworthy who is living with Marfan Syndrome, came up with a new idea for an aortic sleeve, which led to him setting up his own company. The article also then goes on to talk about a central repository of patient innovation to help diffuse these ideas, and this repository actually exists! It's called Patient Innovation and was set up over 2 years ago by the Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics. The group have got over 1,200 submissions, and after screening by a medical team, around 50% of those submissions have been formally listed on the website. Searching the website for what patients have done by themselves is inspiring stuff. 

In the title, you'll notice that I also acknowledged that it's not just the patient who on their own innovates, but their caregivers could be part of that innovation process. Sometimes, the caregiver (parent, family member or someone else) might have a better perspective on what's needed than the patient themselves. The project leader for the Patient Innovation repository, Pedro Oliveira, has also published a paper in 2015, exploring innovation by patients with rare diseases and chronic needs, and I share one of the stories he included in his paper. 

"Consider the case of a mother who takes care of her son, an Angelman syndrome patient. Angelman syndrome involves ataxia, inability to walk, move or balance well. The mother experimented with many strategies, recommended by the doctors, therapists, or found elsewhere, but obtained little gain for her child. By chance, at a neighbor’s child’s birthday party, she noticed her son excitedly jumping for strings to catch a floating helium-filled balloon. This gave her an idea and she experimented at home by filling a room with floating balloons. She found her child began jumping and reaching for the balloons for extended periods of time, amused by the challenge. The mother also added bands to support the knees and keep the child in an upright position. The result was significant improvement in her child’s physical abilities. Other parents to whom she described the solution also tried the balloons strategy and had positive results. This was valued as a novel solution by the medical evaluators."

So many of us think that innovation in today's modern world has to start with an app, a sensor or an algorithm, but the the solutions could involve far simpler technology, such as a balloon! It's critical that we are able to discriminate between our wants and needs. A patient may be led to believe they want an app, but their actual need is for something else. Or that we as innovators want to work with a particular tool or type of technology, and we ignore the need of the patient themselves. 

Oliveira concludes with a powerful statement that made me stand back and pause for a few minutes, "Our finding that 8% of rare disease patients and/or their non-professional caregivers have developed valuable, new to the world innovations to improve their own care suggests that a massive, non-commercial source of medical innovations exists." 

I want you to also pause and reflect on this conclusion. How does this make you feel? Does it make you want to change the way you and your organisation approaches medical innovation? One of the arguments against patient innovation is that it could put the patient at risk, after all, they haven't been to medical school. Is that perception by healthcare professionals of heightened risk justified? Maybe not. Oliverira also reports that, "Almost all the reported solutions were also judged by the experts to be relatively safe: out of 182, only 4 (2%) of the patients’ developments were judged to be potentially detrimental to patients’ health by the evaluators." Naturally, this is just one piece of research, and we would need to see more like this to truly understand the benefit-risk profile of patient innovations, but it's still an interesting insight. 

I feel we don't hear enough in the media about innovation coming from patients and their caregivers. Others also share this sentiment. With reference to the Patient Innovation website, in the summer of 2015, Harold J. DeMonaco, made this statement in his post reminding us that not all innovation comes from industry, "There is a symposium going on this week in Lisbon, Portugal that is honoring patient innovators, and I suspect this will totally escape the notice of US media."

I am curious why we don't hear much more about patient innovators in the media. What can be done to change that? If you're a healthcare reporter reading this post, and you haven't covered patient innovation before, I'm really interested to know why.

During my research, I've been very curious to determine what analysis has been done to understand if patients are better at innovation than others. After all, they are living with their conditions, they are subject matter experts on their daily challenges, and they have enough insights to write a PhD on 'my health challenges' if they needed to! I did find a working paper from March this year from researchers in Germany at the Hamburg University of Technology (Goeldner et al). Are patients and relatives the better innovators? The case of medical smartphone applications, is the title of their paper. Their findings are very thought provoking. For example, when they looked at ratings of apps, the ratings for apps developed by patients and healthcare professionals were higher than those apps developed by companies and independent developers. For me, the most interesting finding was apps developed by patients' relatives got the highest revenues. Think about every hackathon in healthcare you've attended, how many times were patients invited, and how many times were the relatives of patients invited? One of the limitations of the paper which the authors admit, is that it was using apps from Apple's App store. The study would need to be repeated using Google's Play store given that the majority of smartphones in the world are not iPhones. 

This hypothesis from the paper highlights for me why patients and those who care for them need to be actively included,  "We propose that patients and relatives also develop needs during their caring activities that may not yet been envisioned by medical smartphone app developers. Thus, the dual knowledge base might be a reason for the significantly superior quality of apps developed by patients and relatives compared to companies." They also make this recommendation, "Our study shows that both user types – intermediate users and end users – innovated successfully with high quality. Commercial mobile app publishers and healthcare companies should take advantage of this and should consider including patients, patents’ relatives, and healthcare professionals into their R&D process." 

If you're currently developing an app, have you remembered to invite everyone needed to ensure you develop the highest quality app with the highest chance of success? 

I'm attending a Mobile Health meetup in London next week, called "Designing with the Dementia community" - they have 2 fantastic speakers at the event, but neither of them are people living with Dementia. Perhaps the organisers have tried to find people living with Dementia (or their caregivers) to come and speak, but nobody was available on that date. I remember when I founded the Health 2.0 London Chapter, and ran monthly events, just how difficult it was to find patients to come and speak at my events. How do we communicate to patients and their caregivers that they have unique insights that are routinely missing from the innovation process, and that people are wanting to give them a chance to share those insights? Another event in London next month, is about Shaping the NHS & innovation, with a headline of 'How can we continue to put patients first?' They have 4 fantastic speakers, who are all doctors, with not a patient in sight. It reminds me of conferences I attend where people will be making lots of noise about improving physician workflow, yet at these conferences nobody ever advocates for improving patient workflow. 

In the UK, the NHS appears to making the right noises with regard to wanting to include patients and the public in the innovation process. Simon Stevens, CEO of NHS England has spoken of his desire to enable patients to play a much more central role in innovation. Simon Denegri's post reviewing Steven's speech to the NHS Confederation back in 2014 is definitely worth a read.

Despite the hopes of senior leaders, I still feel there is a very large gap between the rhetoric and reality. I talk to so many patients (and healthcare professionals) who sadly have stopped coming up with ideas to make things better because the system always says No or dismisses their idea as foolish because they are not seen as experts. Editing your website to include 'patient centred' is the easy part, but actually getting each of your staff to live and breathe those words on a daily basis is a much more difficult task. Virtually every organisation in healthcare I observe is desperate for innovation, except that they want innovation on their terms and conditions, which is often a long winded, conservative and bureaucratic process. David Gilbert's wonderful post on patient led innovation concludes with a great example of this phenomenon;

"I once worked with a fabulous cardiac rehab nursing team that got together on a Friday and asked each other, ‘what one thing have we learned from patients this week?’ And ‘what one thing could we do better next week?’ We were about to go into the next phase and have a few patients come to those meetings and my fantasy was to get them to help design and deliver some of the ideas. But the Director of Nursing said that our idea was counter to the Engagement Strategy and objected that patients would be ‘unrepresentative’. Now they run focus groups, that report to an engagement sub-committee that reports to a patient experience board that reports to… crash!"

It's not all doom and gloom, times are changing. Two UK patients, Michael Seres & Molly Watt, have each innovated in their own arenas, and created solutions to solve problems that impact people like them. I'm proud that they are both my friends, and their efforts always remind me of what's possible with sheer determination, tenacity and vision, even when all the odds are stacked against you.

Tomorrow, four events in the UK are taking place which fill me with hope. One is People Drive Digital, where the headline reads, "Our festival is a creative space for people orientated approaches to digital technologies and online social networks in health and care" and the second is a People’s Transformathon, where the headline reads, "Bringing together patients, carers, service users, volunteers and staff from across health and care systems in the UK and overseas to connect, share, and learn from one another."

The third event is called Patients First, a new conference from the  Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), where the headlines reads, "It brings together everyone involved in delivering better outcomes for patients – from research and development to care and access to treatments – and puts patients at the heart of the discussion."

The fourth event is a Mental Health & Technology: Ideas Generation Workshop hosted by the Centre for Translational Informatics. Isn't it great to read the description of the event, "South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London want you to join what we hope will be the first in a series of workshops, co-led by service users, that will hear and discuss your views of the mental health technology you use, want to use or wish you had so that we can partner with you in its design, development and deployment." In the FAQ covering the format of the event, the organisers state, "The event will be in an informal and relaxed, there are no wrong opinions! We want to hear your ideas and thoughts." What a refreshing contrast to the typical response you might get within an hospital environment. 

The first event is in Leeds, the second is online, and the third and fourth are both in London, and I know that the first three are using a Twitter hashtag, so you will be able to participate from anywhere in the world. What I find particularly refreshing is that the first two events start their title with the word people, not patient. 

I also noticed that the Connected Health conference next month has a session on Patients as Innovators and Partners, with a Patient Advocate, Amanda Greene, as a speaker. I'm inspired and encouraged by agents of change who work within the healthcare system, and are pushing boundaries themselves by acknowledging that patients bring valuable ideas. One of those people is Dr Keith Grimes, who was also mentoring teams at the MISK Hackathon, and the 360 video below of our conversation, shows why we need more leaders like him. The video is an excerpt from a longer 9 minute video where we even discussed how health hackathons could innovate in terms of format. 

As we approach 2017, I really do hope we see the pace of change speed up, when it comes to harnessing the unique contributions that patients and their caregivers can bring to the innovation process, whether it's at a grassroots community level or the design of the next big health app. More and people around the globe that were previously offline are now being connected to the internet and/or using a smartphone for the first time. How will we tap into their experiences, ideas and solutions? Whether a patient is in Riyadh, Riga or Rio, let's connect with them, and genuinely listen to them, with open hearts and open minds. 

We can also help  to create a different future by educating our youth differently, so they understand their voice matters, even if they don't have a string of letters after their name. We are going to have to have difficult conversations, where we feel uncomfortable, where we'll have to leave our egos out of those conversations. There are circumstances where patients will be leading, and the professionals will have accept that, or risk being bypassed entirely, which is not a healthy situation. Equally, there are times when we'd probably want a paternalistic healthcare system, where the healthcare professionals are seen as the leaders in charge of the situation i.e. in a medical emergency.

The dialogue on patient innovation isn't about patients vs doctors, or about assigning blame, it's about coming together to understand how we move forward. Many of us are conditioned to think and act a certain way, whether it's because of our professional training or just how society suggests we should think. Unravelling that conditioning on a local, national, international and global level is long overdue. 

What will YOU do differently to foster a culture where we have many more innovations coming from patients and their caregivers? A future where having a patient (or their advocate) keynote at an event isn't seen as something novel, but the norm. A future where the system acknowledges that on certain occasions, the patient or their caregiver could be superior at generating innovation. A future where the gap between the rhetoric and reality disappears. 

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

An interview with Adrian Leu on the role for creativity in healthcare

Given the launch of products such as the Samsung Gear VR or Pokemon GO, many of us are experimenting with developments in technology such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) to both create, share and consume content. One of the challenges in Digital Health when it comes to creating an app is where the expertise will come from for building it? It’s an even bigger challenge if you want to find organisations who can build cutting edge VR/AR experiences for you. I strongly believe that the health & social sectors would benefit significantly from greater engagement with the creative sector. Here in the UK, it’s not just London that offers world leading creativity, it’s all around the nation. 

Now in my own personal quest to understand who can help us build a future of Immersive Health, I’ve been examining who the leaders are in the creative sector, and who has a bold enough vision for the future that could well be the missing ingredient that could help us make our healthcare systems fit for the 21st century. I was at an event earlier this year in London where I heard a speaker, Adrian Leu, talk about the amazing work they are doing in VR. Adrian Leu is the CEO of Inition, a multidisciplinary production company specializing in producing installation-based experiences that harness emerging technologies with creative rigour.

So I decided to venture down to their headquarters in London, and interview Adrian.

1. Inition – Who are they?
We are a multi disciplinary team, and have built our reputation looking at new technologies before they become available commercially and how these technologies can be combined to create creative solutions. We are quite proficient in creating experiences which combine, software and hardware. We’ve done many firsts, including one of the first AR experiences. We also did the 1st VR broadcast of a catwalk show from London Fashion Week for Topshop.

We have a track record of over 13 years and hundreds of installations in both the UK and abroad, and we are known for leveraging new technologies for creative communications well before they hit the mainstream; We have have been augmenting reality since 2006, printing in 3D since 2005, and creating virtual realities since 2001. There aren’t many organisations out there who can say the same! We have also combined 3D printing with AR. I’m really proud that we have a finely tuned mixture of people strong on individual capabilities but very interested in what’s happening around them.

We work as an integrator of technology in the area of visual communications. Our specific areas move and shift as the times change. Currently we are doing a lot of stuff in VR, 2 years ago we were doing a lot of AR. Whilst others are talking about this tech, we have tried a lot of them, and we know the nitty gritty of the practical implementations.

We’ve worked with many sectors: pharma, oil/gas, automotive, retail, architectural (AEC), defense and aerospace, and the public sector.

2. What are the core values at the firm?
People are driven here by innovation, creativity, things which have a purpose, and at the end of the day, a mix of all 3 elements. The company was actually founded by 3 men who came from a Computer Sciences and simulation background. It has been run independently for 11 years, then acquired by a PLC 4 years ago, and one of the founders is still with us. Since last year, I have been CEO. My background is data visualisation, my PHD was in medical visualisation, where I was using volumetric rendering to reconstruct organ representations from MRIs.
 
3. Which of your projects are you proudest of?
Our work with the Philharmonia Orchestra and the Southbank Centre is one of them. This was the 1st major VR production from a UK symphony orchestra. In fact, there is a Digital Takeover of the Royal Festival Hall taking place between 23rd September and 2nd October 2016. What’s interesting for me, is the intersection of music, education and technology. If you really want to engage young people with classical music, you have to use their tools. It’s a whole narrative that we are presenting, it offers someone a sight of sounds, what it feels like to be in the middle of an orchestra and be part of their effort to bring the music to its audience.

The other project is our live broadcast of the TopShop catwalk show at London Fashion week 2 years ago. It was filmed in real time at the Tate Modern, and broadcasted to the TopShop flagship store on Oxford Street. Customers won the chance to use VR headsets to be (remotely) present at the event from the store.

For me, what both projects show is the power of telepresence and empathy.

4. Many people believe that VR is only for kids and/or limited to gaming - how do you see the use of VR?
Well, a lot of VR is driven by marketing at the moment, and as a point of entry, VR will be used to go after the low hanging fruit. There is nothing wrong with that. Any successful project will have to have great content, not to see any wires, invisibility, to have a clear purpose, an application and ultimately, a sustainable business model. 

For example, if you are in the property industry, if you allow clients to see 50 houses in VR, they won’t make the decision from the VR headset, but they might filter to 20 from the 50. So it will impact the bottom line.  The connected thinking is not yet done, it will come.  I can see VR being used in retail, i.e. preparation for new product line. You can recreate the retail store in VR, reducing the costs with remote presence.

5. What are the types of projects you’ve done for healthcare clients to date?
Most projects were about the visual communication of ideas, of data or the visual impact of drugs on people. Or at a conference, we helped showcase something that is interactive or engaging, for example, recreate a hospital bed, where there is a virtual patient, and you can see the influence of the drugs through their body. 

Another project we did was showing how it feels to have a panic attack - to help a HCP understand what a patient is going through (in terms panic attack). There are lots of implications from VR, the first technology that could help to generate more empathy for patients. We’ve also done work with haptic and tracking technologies. One example is our work with hospitals and university departments, we tracked a surgical procedure, right down to tracking finger movements, the way a student does a certain procedure and compared that to a certain standard. Thus giving them the opportunity to practice in the immersive environment.

6. What are your future ideas for the use of immersive tech?
Let’s return to empathy. You can create virtual worlds, that someone living with autism may be able to understand, where they can express things. It’s about really understanding what someone is going through, whether it’s curing of phobias or preparing soldiers to go into war.

7. In the future, do you think that doctors would prescribe a VR experience when they prescribe a new drug?
It's the power of the visual communication. I don’t see why we couldn’t have the VR experience as THE treatment.

8. What do you think is coming in the future, above and beyond what’s here today?
Haptics? Smell? The ability to combine physical stuff with the virtual stuff, where you can even smell and touch in a virtual world. An interesting experiment would be to see what could happen if we were expecting something but in VR we had something else, how could it hit our brain?

I can imagine a future where we could superimpose, diagnostic and procedural led images onto the patient. A future where a neurosurgeon would use AR to project 3D imagery from MRIs or CT scans in real time over the brain to  be guided by the exact position of the tumour during to surgery. It’s only a matter of time before this can be available.

9. Who will drive VR/AR adoption in healthcare?
It will be consumers, since that’s the big change we have seen this year, in terms of technology that is becoming available to the man on the street. People will become more accustomed to the tech, we can see that lots of startups are focusing on this, and in the end, I expect the NHS will be looking into this as a strategic priority.

We understand that adoption has to be research driven, there is a need for solid evidence. We are actually part of a European project called V-Time, as a technology partner along with the University of Tel Aviv, and it’s for the rehabilitation of elderly people who have had a fall. It consisted of a treadmill, their feet tracked and in front of them was a big screen. They would have to walk on a pavement in a city, from time to time, facing a variety of virtual obstacles which they have to avoid. The system was analysing how well they were doing that.

10. If a surgeon is reading this, and you wanted to inspire them to think about immersive tech in their work, what would you say?
My father was a surgeon, and he was very empathetic with his patients. He always treated them like they were part of his family. He was always taking calls at night from the patient’s relatives.

If in the future, we can create technology, where immersive systems can explain what’s happening, getting patients and their families more involved, explaining what will happen during the operation, the different things that the surgeon can do and how it will impact the results.

Surgeons have very limited time to do this explanation, I’m confident we can use immersive technologies and visual communication to give the relatives the information and reassurance they seek. If someone is presented with the option of having a surgical procedure but is unsure, why can’t we use VR so patients can be right there in the surgery, and that experience could help them determine whether they actually want to go ahead with the surgery or not? Could the immersive experience help someone get past the fear of having that operation?

11. What about VR and a visit to the GP?
We already have virtual visits over Skype, but what if we threw in haptics. You have the doctor and the patient wearing data (haptics) gloves and in this virtual doctor's office, the patient can help the doctor feel exactly what they are feeling in terms of the location of rash/pain, the exact SPOT. 

Or maybe a cap for the head, for when the patient wants to explain about their headaches, being able to point to the exact spot where the pain is the greatest. A remote physical examination in the virtual world with haptics. 

Another scenario, is when I get into my virtual environment, I have all the other data coming from my Apple watch, other biosensors, vital sign streaming. My doctor could discuss this with me in the virtual room.

12. Which country/city in the world is leading innovation in immersive tech?
It depends upon the area. Some would assume it’s Silicon Valley. In my opinion, London is more advanced in VR/AR. Why? London is THE creative hub, and a lot of immersive tech is driven by creative industries.

The UK as a whole has a thriving creative sector, and the NHS could certainly benefit from greater cross-sector collaboration. We’ve worked for example in the past with and Guys and St Thomas.

13. What would you advise people in healthcare who want to explore the world of immersive tech?
People can come and visit us and play with a variety of tools, it might not be something that’s exactly what they need, but it’s a good experience. Inition’s Demo Lab is a very safe and instructive “sandbox”.

The Demo Lab

The Demo Lab

We can have conversations with people about these technologies, we know how to connect these things together. We’re open to anyone internationally, what drives us are projects that are going to improve the wellbeing of people. What we can’t do is large scale research, without getting partners involved. We can give you a lot of advice, and we can even create prototypes that can be validated through large scale studies. We are open to conversations, whether you are a large pharmaceutical company, in charge of a medical school or even a GP in a small practice.

Adrian Leu & Inition are both on Twitter and click here for the Inition website.

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Immersive Health: Are we ready?

That's the question that I've been reflecting upon over the last 12 months. Some of you may have noticed that in 2016, there is much more news, discussion and excitement with regard to Virtual Reality (VR) technology. Every other day there is some new announcement, and more and more people are believing that this could play a greater role in our future. Google has recently extended its foray into mobile VR beyond their Cardboard initiative with the announcement of their new Daydream platform. VR itself has been around for a while now, and I remember reading about the concept of VR when I took my first Computer Science class 29 years ago! 

Life is in 360, so why shouldn't our experiences be in 360 too? What really caught my attention in 2015 was a tweet by Susannah Fox when she was at TED 2015 after she had watched Chris Milk's talk "How Virtual Reality can create the ultimate empathy machine" and reading how it had impressed her. This really piqued my curiosity with respect to VR and its applications, as when we think of VR, we often associate it with computer games simply for entertainment. I was skeptical that putting on a VR headset could generate empathy for others. In his TED talk, Milk showed the 'Clouds over Sidra' VR experience he created, and after viewing it in VR, I was very surprised at how it made me feel. 

I was also inspired when attending the Body Computing Conference last autumn at USC, where Dr Leslie Saxon announced their new Virtual Care Clinic as well as announcing the winners of their VR Medical Hackathon. In fact, USC's Institute for Creative Technologies is one of the original pioneers when it comes to VR in healthcare as you can see in this short video.

In my quest to understand the future, I started to purchase many of these new devices as soon as they came onto the market. I believe it's important to try new hardware and software for more than a day or two in order to determine what it's like to live with the technology. I purchased a Samsung Gear VR, and ended up using it to demo VR experiences at the world's 1st Pop-Up Museum of Happiness in London at the start of 2016. I offered attendees the chance to experience guided meditation at the beach, snowboarding or diving in the ocean with the whales.

With Sam Cookney, we helped people attending the pop up Museum of Happiness in London, experience Virtual Reality. This man tried a 360 video using a Samsung Gear VR, which took him on a helicopter ride in the mountains, followed by snowboarding Hear his immediate reaction to the experience.

It was fascinating to see the range of reactions to the Gear VR, some thought it was terrible, and others enjoyed meditating on the beach so much, they didn't want to take the headset off and come back to the real world. Seeing some people smiling and laughing after a few minutes with a headset with a smartphone inside of it compelled me to keep exploring the potential uses of this technology. For example, given aging populations, how do we immerse ourselves in the world of someone aged 85, who lives alone and has multiple long term conditions? In Australia, a Virtual Dementia Experience has been developed, which "is an immersive, interactive virtual reality experience that invades the senses and takes people into the world of a person living with dementia, simulating thoughts, fears and challenges." That's already here today, so what might we do in the future?

It's not just about consuming VR content but creating it too. It's now possible to buy a 360 camera, record your own 360 video, and upload it to YouTube & Facebook which both support 360 videos. You can then share the video, and whoever views it can watch it on their computer, their smartphone or even using a VR headset. Personally, I suggest using a smartphone whilst connected to wifi or a VR headset if you have access to one. Dr Shafi Ahmed recently made history by performing a cancer surgery in London, live streamed using 360 cameras located in the operating theatre, which allowed people around the globe to watch the surgery up close and personal in Virtual Reality. 

Sometimes, there are unexpected findings associated with the use of emerging technology such as a 360 camera. Many of us might dismiss it as a gimmick for every day use. We can't assume how this tech will or will not impact lives. We often just have to get out there and try something new, even if we don't know what to expect. Our sense of wonder and curiosity takes us towards new horizons. I was delighted to read Molly Watt's post on how using a 360 camera has helped her see the world differently by taking 360 images, despite losing her peripheral vision a few years ago. If you haven't done so already, do read my last post which was an interview with Molly on how she is putting Usher Syndrome on the map. If you ask me for a list of the top 10 people that influence my thinking about the future of technology, Molly would definitely be in that list. I firmly believe that citizens should have the freedom to find or even make their own solutions. Couple that mindset with advances in technology available to consumers, and we are heading for a world where our children will attend school and assume that 'invention literacy' was always part of the curriculum. 

This year, I've used telemedicine services in the UK where I had a video call with a doctor using my tablet. Will my telemedicine visit with the doctor in 2020 be in Virtual Reality? What if the doctor could visit me virtually in my own home, and by seeing my home environment in 360 degrees, be able to pick up social and environmental cues that could help them make a more accurate diagnosis? Or what if taking a selfie with a 360 camera allowed researchers looking at smoking cessation programs to understand smoking triggers in someone's social and physical environment with one 360 image? That's a core element of a pitch from a team I was part of at a recent Cancer Research UK Innovation Workshop that led to us winning an award for funding to conduct a pilot study. The 360 image you see embedded below was taken moments after we won. You can move around the entire image and immerse yourself in that moment, much more than a regular image. 

Our team just got awarded funding at @crukresearch #innovation workshop #cancerprevention - Spherical Image - RICOH THETA

I recently gave a talk at Health 2.0 Amsterdam, called 'Immersive Health: Are we ready?' and I used my Ricoh Theta S 360 camera to record my talk. The resolution of the video could be better, which is why I've also gone out and also purchased 4K 360 cameras such as the Insta360 and the Kodak PixPro SP360. Our existing infrastructure is usually not quite ready to cope with these new technologies. For example, I tried embedding the 360 video in this post, but it didn't display as a 360 video, just a regular one. Hence, I had to insert links to my 360 videos throughout this post, which require you to click on, and then it launches YouTube where you can have the full 360 video experience. Now, when you watch the 360 video of my talk in Amsterdam on your phone, move the phone around and you'll change the position of the video! 

2016 has also seen the launch of two long awaited VR headsets, one called the Oculus Rift and the other is the HTC Vive. These are the most advanced products consumers can buy today, and I've bought both of them. Whilst they deliver an immersive experience that is unparalleled by any other technology available to consumers, there are a few drawbacks. The first of which is price. I paid almost £800 for the HTC Vive, and I needed to buy a rather high end gaming PC to use it, which was another £1,400. The Oculus Rift was cheaper at £529, and I've opted to get a VR ready laptop for use with the Rift, which is an eye watering £2,200. So, this level of VR tech is not affordable to the masses yet, but neither were the original mobile phones when they were first launched.

You may wonder, when it comes to making us healthier and happier, where is the value in these expensive VR systems? Well, hospitals are starting to experiment with these advanced products. For example, C.S Mott. Children's hospital in the USA, has been using the Oculus Rift with sick children who were stuck in a hospital ward for a length of time.

There is a compelling read on Reddit, entitled "Oculus Rift saved my sanity while stuck in the hospital, Thanks!" This story was written by a patient in the USA, who upon facing being stuck on the top floor of the hospital for treatment decided to bring in his own system to the hospital. The part that stood out to me the most is "All from my top floor prison of a floor I couldn't leave. This was my getaway, for the rest of the stay. Teleporting me away from the sterile, dry and bland existence that was my hospital room. I was playing my flight simulators and space simulators, racing cars and playing FPS. Life was good again." Granted, this isn't a clinical trial, but it's a positive outcome, their own success story, and a brilliant example of patients as innovators. 

Researchers have been testing VR for some time now, most of the proven use cases seem to be with exposure therapy. For example, 12 years ago, this study looked at the use of VR and computer games as exposure therapy for people with a fear of driving after a car accident. In this study from 16 years ago, researchers looked at the use of VR to overcome fear of flying. What else could we achieve now given the VR technology has evolved and we now have an array of VR products from cheap to expensive, available in the consumer market? There is also the expected array of hype with VR that we have to navigate, just like the hype that still surrounds wearables, big data and AI etc. Finding the signal within the noise won't be easy. We can't just jump into working with this technology because it's new and shiny, we all have to operate with finite resources, no matter how big an organisation we work in.

There are so many questions to answer before we can even begin to explore this arena. What can VR replace or augment? What can we do with VR that we never thought was possible before? Will we be prescribed a VR experience by our doctor alongside our medication so we can better understand the benefits of adhering to our treatment plan? What does the ongoing refinement of VR tech mean for medical education? What are the long term risks of using these headsets for extended periods of time? Is the use of VR going to isolate us or immerse us? Who can actually afford to use VR?

That's why I decided to launch my VR for Health & Social Care workshop in London. Since I've invested in many of the latest devices, tested them myself, have been reviewing the scientific literature to understand what's been studied so far, researched future trends in VR and thought of how they might be used across Health & Social Care, why not blend that all together into an interactive learning experience for people who want to be able to make informed decisions about VR. These devices whether they be the headsets or the cameras are best experienced with your own eyes. In my workshop, one of the things you'll be learning is how to take take, process and upload 360 videos, and then viewing the content you create, in Virtual Reality! Unlocking creativity is key, and I really do believe that the creative industries will have a much larger role to play when it comes to improving our health in the future. There is a deficit of imagination when it comes to new ideas and inventions today, and collectively we must be bolder in imagining the world we want to create for our children, and our grandchildren. 

For some of you, VR may turn out to be something you want to utilise immediately, for others it may still have too many limitations to be of value until the technology and related services evolve. To that end, I've worked with experts such as Dr Keith Grimes for clinical input and Shirley Ayres for her depth of experience in the social sector, when designing the workshop to ensure that you'll walk away with knowledge that you can apply immediately in your own work. 

The workshops are 4 hours in duration, and are held on selected Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in London during June and July. I've deliberately limited each workshop to 4 attendees, as I want to maximise the learning opportunity for each of you. I've been to conferences where there are long lines just to try out the latest VR systems for a couple of minutes, and if you have an unexpected reaction to VR, you're in a public place where everyone to see. 

The workshop has the same content, experience and devices across the 23 dates, so you can simply choose a date that's convenient for you. I've already received requests to run the workshops in other parts of the UK, if that's something you'd like, please contact me to discuss.

You can read more about the workshop and book your ticket here. 

Finally, I've made another 360 video when I was preparing for the workshop yesterday at the venue. You can take a look around the classroom as well as see the devices you'll be getting to use during the workshop. 

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above, apart from Dr Keith Grimes and Shirley Ayres who I have hired to consult on the design of my workshop]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

An interview with Molly Watt: Putting Usher Syndrome on the map

For this post, I wanted to share Molly Watt’s story. I first came across Molly in 2015, after I read her Apple Watch post. I had also just received my Apple Watch and was curious about other people’s experiences. What’s different about Molly, is that she has Usher syndrome, which is a rare genetic disorder caused by a mutation in any one of at least 11 genes resulting in a combination of hearing loss and visual impairment, and is a leading cause of deafblindness. Usher syndrome is the most common cause of congenital deafblindness (the elderly is the biggest group). Usher syndrome is incurable at present. Usher syndrome hasn’t held Molly back, she’s even set up her own charity, the Molly Watt Trust and much more. When reading each of her subsequent blog posts. her writing was creative, courageous and candid, and that resonated with me. In fact, it resonated so strongly with me, I decided to visit Molly in her home town of Maidenhead, England to interview her. It’s a longer interview than what I would normally post, but we have so much to learn from Molly (and others like her), that I was compelled to include as much as possible from her answers. Listening to Molly was also a powerful reminder, that we often focus so much on ‘empowering’ or ‘activating’ or ‘engaging’ patients themselves, that we ignore the patient’s family and friends who play a very critical role. I feel there are so many voices currently not heard, do we need to change the way we listen?

The image below is a 360 image from my interview with Molly. 

Post from RICOH THETA. - Spherical Image - RICOH THETA

1. You were recently had a meeting at Apple's HQ in America to share your views on accessibility. Can you tell us more about how you ended up there?
The main thing was the Apple watch blog post that I wrote, and through the charity, I discuss how we can access things through tech. I have been an Apple user since my diagnosis 10 years ago, I had a Mac eventually in education to access exam papers. So when the Apple watch came out, I was unsure what it could offer, and I bought one out of curiosity, and thought I would probably return it. Accessibility has been at the cornerstone of my life since the diagnosis, and we got my website set up after Xmas 2014, and my mum encouraged me to blog, so I did.

This was the first personal blog post wrote. I think the timing of it was shortly after the launch of the Apple watch, there was a lot of bad press saying it was a toy, but I found from the perspective of sensory impairment, it opened a lot of doors for me to be more independent, I never missed a phone call because of the prominent haptics, the digital touch features were really beneficial socially when out with friends, maps was a big feature for me, navigating from A to B with the watch. When I’m out I’d rather have my phone in my bag, as it’s much safer for me, and the watch enables me to do that. My post generated quite a lot of positive reviews about the Apple watch. All of that is how after a few months, Philip W. Schiller, the senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Apple retweeted me and my website crashed due to so many hits. From there onwards, a lot of people contacted the trust. We have to remember that a lot of people can’t afford the watch, many with Usher syndrome are shuffling between jobs.

Apple had reached out to the trust to speak with me, and since we were going on a family holiday to California, they said, well come and visit us. They were genuinely interested in hearing my story, and to understand how technology can enable accessibility much more in the future. As a family, we travel as much as possible, because my sight may completely go at any time. I wrote a post about my trip to California.

2. Many people laugh at products such as the Apple watch calling it a toy or not seeing any value in using it, but it has been of value in your life. What can be done to get people looking at all possible uses of new technology?
I wasn't sure about the Apple watch, I couldn't really understand what it would do for me over the iPhone that I have relied on for years. My decision to purchase it was last minute really as a couple of my friends were getting one. It's great my friends did as I might not have got one myself as we were able to explore the features of the watch together. However, for me after a little fiddling around with my insight into my real need for accessibility I was able to really put it to the test. I believe people give the Apple watch a bit of a hard time because they don't use it in the way somebody like myself does. I have learnt how to use it to make a real difference to my life, and it’s a brilliant piece of equipment I have come to rely on. I guess because I rely on technology I have become an expert in my own way of accessing it!

3. You've got your own charity and you've spoken at places such as the Houses of Parliament and Harvard Medical School. When you were younger, did you envisage you would reach these heights?
I had no idea. I think my own struggles have made me feel passionate about making a difference, to raise awareness of ability as much as disability, share my experiences good and bad and demonstrate the importance of accessible, assistive technology. I am definitely not the person I was since being diagnosed with Usher syndrome.  

Being deaf is very different, it is not rare.  It is however challenging and there needs to be support and assistive technology.  In the area I live, support of the deaf was excellent. Usher Syndrome diagnosis brought confusion and inexperience of supporting somebody with the condition particularly in school - my education became a nightmare as I couldn't access the curriculum without modification and nobody knew what they were doing.

At my real time of need the only people I could rely on were my parents who continued to battle for me even though they also did not really understand what I was going through. I definitely get my determination and drive from them.

I've been speaking since I was 14 and making awareness videos.  It was my way of telling people what I was going through, how I felt and what I felt I needed by way of support. That's how it all began and as the years have gone by I have found my work public speaking a very useful skill and a way of reaching the larger audience with the many messages I have.

4. When it comes to accessibility and new technology, what's missing? What are the 3 top inventions that you'd like to see come in the next few years?
This is a hard question as I'm not an expert on what is possible. I believe people in design, design of everything can be improved by the inclusion of accessibility from day one. The obvious things like all websites need to be completely accessible. I rely on this sort of thing, picking up a book isn't an option. Things like hotels often terrible design, decor, carpets & wallpapers clashing and the poorest lighting. Most public places are difficult.

I cannot wait for the driverless car to be available to people like me, I'm sad I'll never experience driving but excited to think this technology is on the horizon.

5. For those living with Usher Syndrome, do they feel like their wants & needs are being heard. If not, what could we do to be better listeners?
Definitely not, there is a lack of understanding and awareness.  Usher syndrome is the most common cause of congenital deafblindness and few are experienced in dealing with it hence few get what they need. Life is a constant battle.

I'm sad that people with Usher Syndrome struggle to be understood and often live isolated lives.
Many do not work, do not socialise, and do not have access to enabling technology to allow them access to social media and if they did, they need help in learning to how to use the technology. Some use sign language which again can be isolating and can cause difficulty getting employment as communication support is often needed and hard to access as cuts to Access to Work continue. I think professionals should encourage people like myself to be vocal about their needs and to listen and take onboard their thoughts and feelings. All too often people tried to speak for me and it is not acceptable. Encouragement from the point of diagnosis is important.  

I'm fortunate my parents have always encouraged me to speak up.

6. I understand you've faced many challenges when dealing with the NHS, schools and charities/support groups, can you tell us a bit more about what happened? 
I'll answer this one at a time:

The NHS were good with my deafness diagnosis when I was little and up to my Usher diagnosis, thereafter it has been a different story. Sadly, audiologists who are often the first point of contact either know of the condition but have not treated anybody with it or worse, know nothing about it. Either way it is not helpful to the patient and needs to change. It is the same with ophthalmologists, who know about eye conditions but not much about deafblindness.  Whilst conditions are rare, there has to be professionalism in dealing with all conditions. An example of not having a decent understanding is my NHS audiologist who has known me since I was very young and has monitored my hearing with regular tests the results of which are followed up in writing. It would be great if I could read those results, which were completely inaccessible until I pointed it out that they were completely unaware of my accessibility issues. Not a thought about how I am able to access information in font 10/12 on white paper and black text!

Equally I have sat at Moorfields Eye Hospital and during the appointment, was spoken to whilst a Professor looked at his computer screen - everybody knows deaf people need to see faces to lipread and for facial expressions, even those of us with very little sight. These things should be obvious!

My experience of a mainstream school was excellent whilst I was deaf, there was great support.
Again after my Usher Syndrome diagnosis there was a lot of confusion, I was given the support of a VI teacher as well as my teacher of the deaf, and neither had supported somebody like myself.
A multi sensory teacher had to be "bought" in from a charity and yes she understood the condition but with one visit a term to educate those supporting me and myself things did not go the way they should have. This resulted in me struggling to deal with what was happening to me, I felt a burden and looked to move schools, my biggest mistake ever.

I thought going to a private school for the deaf, who were familiar with my condition I'd be with people like myself! I couldn't have been more wrong. The deaf kids were cruel, questioned my deafness as I have good speech, questioned my blindness as I appeared to see. The staff were just as bad. I boarded initially and spent hours in my dorm as I physically couldn't get from dorm to dining hall in the dark, nobody noticed or cared. Teachers didn't modify my reading material and if they did it would be on A3 paper making me feel very different. I struggled for 2 years trying to deal with my failing sight, being in denial as it often seemed easier to be that way surrounded by deaf kids telling me I was fine - it was hell.

It was made worse when I got my guidedog who did enable me to get from A to B safely then I was denied access to all social areas as my need to get from A to B was not as important as the need for a younger boy with a dog allergy to move freely around the school. 

I left with depression and a nervous breakdown at 17 years old.

That school knew all there was about Usher syndrome - they knew little, I was treated very badly.

Charities:  
Sense is the main deafblind charity, they cover/support all types of deafblindness, including deafblind with additional issues from the very young to the very old and everything in between and they are great at campaigning however I do feel people with Usher Syndrome often miss out and that’s why we set up the Molly Watt Trust.

My family travel to the USA to find out information about Usher Syndrome, there has not in the 10 years I have been diagnosed an Usher specific conference yet several for other types of deafblindness even though Usher Syndrome is the most common cause of congenital deafblindness.
Sense does a great job but there is little for those with Usher syndrome. Being an ambassador I'm always happy to help/work alongside them on any Usher projects. I am an Ambassador for Sense and happy to do what I can when I can to promote awareness of Usher syndrome, something I do as part of the work I do with the companies I have worked with. I have spoken for several charities including RP Fighting Blindness and also Berkshire Vision. I often feel on the outside looking in, I don't fit in the deaf community or the blind community and yet I feel I'm a part of both along with the Usher community and society in general.

Belonging somewhere is important to us all.

7. You wanted genetic testing, but encountered resistance from the system. Why did they think it was a bad idea for you to have genetic testing?
I wanted genetic testing when I was 15 years old, back in 2009. I had studied genetics a little at school and I wanted to know exactly who I am. My parents asked at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London the next time we were there and we were told ‘NO’ because of funding and because there is no cure for my condition. I remember feeling very upset and my parents following up the request for genetic testing with my GP.  Thankfully he understood the need and arranged for me to see a geneticist from John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. My geneticist was brilliant (Edward Blair), he explained things in full and even provided a history lesson on where Usher syndrome came from. Some 6 months later I was told I have Usher syndrome type 2a. The importance of knowing is essential should the chance to trial anything become an option in the future. If there is any clinical testing of that gene in the future I can decide if I'd like to be involved. Being told ‘NO’ makes you feel you are a lost cause which just escalates the isolation this condition brings. Everything is a battle with this condition.

Something else to be considered is the benefits system. I have been assessed more times than I can say. Sadly people think deafblind, no hearing, no sight and no speech.  When they see me they are often very shocked and then don't believe I have any disability. On one occasion I arrived for an assessment (ATOS) and was told by the doctor he had googled Usher syndrome the night before!  He did not have a clue what I deal with on a daily basis.

8. When it comes to innovation in technology, and in particular around accessibility, what is your long term dream? 
I'd like people with disabilities to be considered from day one.  I'd like those with rare disabilities like mine to have access to all equipment they need and to be taught how to use it. I’d like them to have access to transport and benefits to enable them to work.

I think developers of everything need to understand the unique needs of all. For them to realise disabilities are not black and white. Sensory impairments are not two colours. Some with Usher are profoundly deaf (usually type 1's), the older generation might not have used any hearing aids so rely on sign language (BSL) and later tactile signing as their vision deteriorates - their communication skills and needs differ to the younger generation who have (parents chose) cochlear implants hence access to sound young and oral. My generation in the main, wear hearing aids and are oral. This is in my opinion a huge positive to accessing our world. However those who sign must always be considered regarding accessibility. And being blind is extremely rarely total darkness. There are many grey areas that are not often considered. 

In an ideal world I'd like to work/consult with developers around the world working on accessibility for all.  I'd like to be a part of moving forward with assistive technology. I believe if technology works for people like myself it will work for the older generation who's eyes and ears start to fail them as they grow older and this is very important with our ageing population.

9. Do you think there are other people like yourself around the world? Have you built your own network or is that something still to come?
I know of a few people doing similar to what I do. I have built a network which continues to grow, I am quite well known for my work around the world something I have been doing since I was 15. There is definitely more work to do and lots more to come. I hope that one day having Usher syndrome can just open up unique doors for every individual, rather than the progressive isolation and depression lack of access and awareness can give.

10. Who has inspired you the most in your life, and why?
My parents, particularly my mum and my grandparents.  They have always encouraged, supported and fought for me and I have learnt so much from them.
My mum always told my brothers and my younger sister we could be anything we wanted.  At that time she didn't realise what was around the corner for me but she still believed I would make some-thing of myself and I will, one way or another!
Before I could speak (at age 6), my Nannie, Pat, would sit me down and we'd make cards, paint and create for hours. We'd do jigsaw puzzles and watch Disney videos. My creative streaks definitely arose from those days. I was born creative and to this day use those skills. My children's books have frog characters, my Nan loved frogs. She inspired me.

11. If people want to work with you, what would they need to be offering to get your attention?
Opportunities to speak, to motivate, to innovate, to consult, to make a difference, to be heard.
My passion is accessible assistive technology and educating others.

12. If others wanted to follow in your footsteps, what would your advice be to them?
I'd encourage others to think about what is important to them, how to use their unique skill set to make a difference. Work hard and be passionate about your cause. Plus of course, never be afraid to speak up. Find ways to express yourself, in that process you eventually find yourself and also the confidence to help others.

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Shifting to a world of prevention: A GP's story

For this post, I caught up with Dr Manpinder Sahota, a GP in Britain's NHS. We first interacted over Twitter, where we met on the topic of shifting healthcare to a world of prevention. Dr Sahota said he had a vision for building a GP practice with a focus on wellness and prevention of disease, and was curious if technology could play a role in that. So I hopped on a train to see him, and what follows is the interview at his practice, in Gravesend. For those who have never visited, Gravesend is an ancient town in north west Kent, England, situated 21 miles east south-east of Charing Cross, London on the south bank of the Thames estuary. Gravesend has one of the oldest surviving markets in the country, its earliest charter dates from 1268. For my American readers, Gravesend is where Princess Pocahontas is buried, having died there almost 400 years ago, on a ship bound for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Back to the present day, Gravesend [and the borough of Gravesham that it falls under] faces the challenge of childhood obesity, with 38.9% of 10 to 11-year-olds resident in Gravesham being overweight or obese. Demographics are changing, with 17% of the population of the borough of Gravesham having been born outside of the UK. 

Hearing about new models of care with Dr Manpinder Sahota at his GP practice

Hearing about new models of care with Dr Manpinder Sahota at his GP practice

1. What is your role & responsibilities?
I've been at the Pelham medical practice since 1999. We have 7 GPs, over 2 sites and almost 14,000 patients. I'm the Diabetes lead and a GP trainer as well. I also provide free acupuncture to some of my patients. 

2. What are the key challenges you're facing in the year ahead? 
In a place like Gravesend, where 50% of patients are not tech savvy, getting reminders on their mobile phone or 'choose and book' [Note: Choose and Book is a national electronic referral service which gives patients a choice of place, date and time for their first outpatient appointment in a hospital or clinic] doesn’t mean anything to them. Furthermore,  many can just about get to the local hospital on the cheapest bus, and often they can't afford a taxi to a hospital that is further away, so services such as 'choose and book' are of no use to them.  I'm seeing the local population getting sicker and sicker, and although some of my patients are living longer due to being on 9 or 10 drugs, they usually have very little quality of life. 

My main challenge is educating people in lifestyle changes, especially those from the lower social classes. I've found that if I can give them a practical bit of advice or even encouragement, it does lead to lower blood pressure and loss of weight.  

Patients only seem to listen when they are about to have ill health, many times there is no motivation to change behaviour, diet and exercise, especially given education levels can be quite low. 

I'm interested in pre-Diabetes and screening for pre-Diabetes, that is where the biggest change can happen. Usually, my patients know a bit about Diabetes from someone in the family, so there is some emotional trigger, which can help in our conversations. 

3. What is your big vision for moving to a world with a focus on prevention of disease?
My overall big vision is to get away from prescribing drugs, there are dangers of polypharmacy and I want to get people to rely upon themselves, and use lifestyle medicine as the first discussion point, before we go down the path of handing out tablets. I'm also thinking about depression, back pain, obesity related diseases, and am keen to provide Tai Chi classes, Yoga classes and Meditation classes at this new centre.

4. Tell us more about your new centre
My new centre is not replacing the existing GP surgery. It would be a new GP practice with a preventative component, One idea is to have a gym at the top of the surgery where Tai Chi classes could take place. I want to be able to prescribe patients a 12 week course on diet and nutrition with a personal trainer. There is a national program where certain courses for diabetes prevention can be done. No current funding, but in the future, there should be money coming from it. If the NHS wont fund my ideas, I will go to the British Heart Foundation or National Lottery. 

5. Switching over to technology, there is much talk about giving patients online access to their medical records, in the hope that it will improve the quality of care, shared decision making as well as patient outcomes. How often do patients come in and ask for a paper copy of their medical records?
Very rarely, it does happen though.

6. If today, your practice was able to offer online access to medical records for your patients, as an estimate, how many would use it?
I estimate 25% would use it. The remaining 75% aren't that educated and/or don't have computers. In fact, 10% of the patients visiting our practice need an interpreter during the visit, as they don't speak English, or don't speak it well enough. 

Our other practice is in a deprived area. Over there, the patients tend to believe the doctor knows best, and they don't want to be involved in their treatment decision, patients actually want a paternalistic healthcare system. Quite a lot of my Indian patients, believe that the doctor is God, and if you give them management options, they are not interested.

7. We hear so much about how wearable technology is changing healthcare. How many of your patients are coming in and showing you apps or wearables with respect to behaviour change (such as using a FitBit as a tool in increasing physical activity)?
Hardly any patients are showing up at appointments with this kind of technology.

8. What are your thoughts when you hear the term 'Big Data' in healthcare? How does it make you feel as a GP?
We are already overloaded with information, letters from hospitals, from agencies, if we have to look at even more information, that would be too much for us. We are doing too much administration work already, any new information would have to be controlled very well. We are literally drowning in information, as everything in the NHS gets sent to a patient's GP.

9. How might 'smarter homes'  in the future help you as a GP in terms of prevention?
Technology that could help spot rises in blood sugar, oxygen, pulse rates. Patients are already bringing in paper to their appointments showing their rising Blood Pressure levels. For current hypertensives, I'd like to see a patient's BP readings at home on my computer screen prior to the patient's visit. Patients could save admin time if they could pre-enter this information for me to see. What if we could get food diaries into patient's medical records, that would be great for preventing Diabetes. To be able to understand what they are eating on a daily or weekly basis, the carbohydrate content etc. 

10. Who influences you?
I follow Dr Aseem Malhotra and Jamie Oliver, they are both leading a national conversation. I hope to see celebrities and sports starts taking up the baton in health prevention and get involved in their local areas. What if we had footballers like David Beckham or Wayne Rooney helping to spread this message? Kids would listen to those people, rather than us. 

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties with the individuals or organisations mentioned above]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Developing a wearable biosensor: A doctor's story

For this post, I caught up with Dr Brennan Spiegel, to hear in more detail about his journey to get a wearable biosensor from concept to clinic. In the interview, we discuss how an idea for a sensor was borne out of an unmet clinical need, how the sensor was prototyped, tested, and subjected to clinical research, and how it was finally FDA approved in December of 2015. Throughout, we learn about the challenges of developing a wearable biosensor, the importance of working with patients, doctors, and nurses to get it right, and how to conduct rigorous research to justify regulatory approval of a device. The interview ends with seven suggestions from Dr. Spiegel for other inventors seeking to develop wearable biosensors.

1. What is AbStats?
AbStats is wearable sensor that non-invasively measures your intestinal activity – it's like a gut speedometer. The sensor is disposable, about the size of a large coin, sticks on the external abdominal wall, and has a small microphone inside that dutifully listens to your bowel churn away as it digests food. A specialized computer analyzes the results and presents a value we call the "intestinal rate," which is like a new vital sign for the gut.  We've all heard of the heart rate or respiratory rate; AbStats measures the intestinal rate.  The sensor tells the patient and doctor how much the intestines are moving, measured in "events per minute."  If the intestinal rate is very high, like 30 or 40 events per minute, then it means the gut is revved up and active.  If it's very low, like 1 or 2 per minute, then it means the gut is asleep or, possibly, even dysfunctional depending on the clinical situation.

2. What existing problem(s) does it solve?
AbStats was specifically designed, from the start, to solve for a real problem we face in the clinical trenches.  

We focused first on patients undergoing surgery.  Almost everyone has at least temporary bowel paralysis after an operation.  When your body undergoes an operation, whether on your intestines or on your toe (or anywhere in-between), it's under a great deal of stress and tends to shut down non-vital systems.  The gastrointestinal (GI) tract is one of those systems – it can take a hit and shut down for a while.  Normally, the GI system wakes up quickly.  But in some cases the GI tract is slow to come back online.  This is a condition we call postoperative ileus, or POI, which occurs in up to 25% of patients undergoing abdominal surgeries.  

The issue is that it's hard to know when to confidently feed patients after surgery.  Surgeons are under great pressure by administrators to feed their patients quickly and discharge them as soon as possible. But feeding too soon can cause serious problems, from nausea and vomiting, to aspiration, pneumonia, or even death.  On the other hand, feeding too late can lead to infections, prolong length of stay, and cost money.  As a whole, POI costs the US healthcare system around $1.5 billion because of uncertainties about whether and when to feed patients.  It's a very practical and unglamorous problem – exactly the type of issue doctors, nurses, and patients care about. 

Now, you might ask how we currently decide when to feed patients.  Here's the state of the art: we ask patients if they've farted or not. We literally ask them, practically all day long, "have you passed gas yet?"  No joke.  Or, we'll look at their belly and determine if it looks overly distended.  We might use our stethoscope to listen to the bowels for 15 seconds at a time, and then make a call about whether to feed.  It's nonsense.  Data reveals that we do a bad job of determining whether someone is fit to eat.  We blow it in both directions – sometimes we overcall, and sometimes we under call.  We figured, in this fantastical age of digital health, there had to be a better way than asking people about their flatus!  So we invented AbStats. 

3. What prompted you to embark upon this journey?
One day, about 4 years ago, I was watching Eric Topol give a TED talk about wearable biosensors and the "future of medicine." As I watched the video, I noticed that virtually very part of the human body had a corresponding wearable, from the heart, to the lungs, to the brain, and so forth.  But, sitting there in the middle was this entire body cavity – the abdominal cavity – that had absolutely zero sensor solutions.  As a gastroenterologist, I thought this must be an oversight.  We have all manner of medieval devices to get inside the GI system, and I'm skilled at inserting those things to investigate GI problems.  But typical procedures like colonoscopies, enteroscopies, capsule endoscopies, and motility catheters are all invasive, expensive, and carry risks.  There had to be a way to non-inavsively monitor the digestive engine.  So, I thought, what do we have available to us as doctors?  That's easy: bowel sounds.  We listen to bowel sounds all the time with a stethoscope, but it's highly inefficient and inaccurate.  It makes no sense to sit there with a stethoscope for 20 minutes at a time, much less even 1 whole minute.  But the GI system is not like the heart, where we can make accurate diagnoses in short order, over seconds of listening.  The GI system is slow, plodding, and somewhat erratic.  We needed something that can stand guard, vigilantly, and literally detect signal in the noise.  That's when AbStats was borne.  It was an idea in my head, and then, about 4 years later, became an FDA-approved device.  

4. What was the journey like from initial idea to FDA approval? 
When I first invented AbStats, I wasn't thinking about FDA approval.  I knew virtually nothing about FDA approval of biomedical devices.  I just wanted the thing built, as fast as possible, and rigorously tested in patients.  As a research scientists and professor of medicine and public health, this is all I know.  I need to see proof – evidence – that something works.  AbStats would be no different. 

I was on staff at UCLA Medical Center when I first invented the idea for AbStats. I told our office of intellectual property about the idea, and they suggested I speak with Professor William Kaiser at the UCLA Wireless Health Institute.  So, I gave him a call.  

Dr. Kaiser got his start working for General Motors, where he contributed to inventing the automotive cruise control system.  Later, he went to work for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where he worked on the Mars Rover project.  Then, he came to UCLA and founded the Wireless Health Institute.  He is fond of saying that of all the things he's done in his career, from automotive research to spaceships, he believes the largest impact on humanity he's had is in the realm of digital health.  He is a real optimist.  

So, when I told Professor Kaiser about my idea for AbStats, he immediately got it.  He got to work on building the sensor and developed important innovations to enhance the system.  For example, he developed a clever way to ensure the device is attached to the body and not pulled off.  This is really important, because if AbStats reports that a patient's intestinal rate is zero, then it might mean severe POI, or it might mean the device fell off.  AbStats can tell the difference thanks to Professor Kaiser's engineering ingenuity.  

Once we developed a minimal viable product, we worked like crazy to test it in the clinics, write papers, and publish our work.  At the same time, UCLA licensed the IP to a startup company, called GI Logic, that worked with our teams to submit the FDA documentation.  Professor Kaiser's team did the heavy lifting on the engineering and safety side, and we focused on the clinical side.  It was a great example of stem-to-stern teamwork, ranging from in-house engineering expertise, to clinical expertise, to regulatory expertise.  It all came together very fast.  

Importantly, it was my sister who came up with the name "AbStats."  I always remember to credit her with that part of the journey!

5. What role did patients play in the design of AbStats? 
Patients were critical to our design process.  We went through a series of form factors before settling on the current version of AbStats.  At first, the system resembled a belt with embedded sensors. Patients told us they hated the belt.  They explained that, after undergoing an abdominal surgery, the last thing they wanted was a belt on their abdomen.  We tweaked and tweaked, and eventually developed two small sensors that adhere to the abdomen with Tegaderm.  Even those are not perfect – it hurts to pull Tegaderm off of skin, for example.  And the sensors are high profile, so they are not entirely unobtrusive.  We're working on that, too.  But patient feedback was key and remains vital to our current and future success with AbStats.  

6. How did patients & physicians respond to AbStats during research & development?
It was gratifying that virtually every surgeon, nurse, and patient we spoke with about AbStats immediately "got it."  This is not a hard concept to sell.  Your bowels make sound.  The sound matters. And AbStats can listen to those sounds, make sense of them, and provide feedback to doctors and nurses to drive decisions.  The "so what" question was answered.  If your belly isn't moving, then we shouldn't feed you.  If it's moving a little, we should feed a little.  And if it's moving a lot, then we should feed a lot.  The surgeons called this the AbStats "stoplight", as in "red light," "yellow light," and "green light."  Each is mapped to a very specific action plan.  It's not complicated.  

We were especially surprised by the engagement of nurses in this process.  Nurses are the heart and soul of patient care, especially in surgery.  Our nursing colleagues told us that feeding decisions come up in nearly every discussion with post-operative patients.  They said they have virtually no objective parameter to follow, and saw AbStats as a way to engage patients in ways they previously could not. This was surprising.  For example, the nurses pointed out that many patients are on narcotics for pain control, and that can slow their bowels even further. By having an objective parameter, the nurses can now use AbStats to make conversations more objective and actionable.  For example, they can show that every time a patient uses a dose of narcotics, it paralyzes the bowels further.  Knowing that, some patients might be willing to reduce their medications, if only by a little, to help expedite feeding decisions.  AbStats enables that conversation.  It's really gratifying to see how a device can alter the very process of care, to the point of impacting the nature of conversations between patients and their providers.  Almost uniformly, the patients in our trials felt the sensors provided value, and so did their nurses. 

7. Would you approach the problem differently if you had to do this again?
Not really.  Considering that in 4 years we invented a sensor, iteratively improved its form factor, conducted and published two peer-reviewed clinical trials, submitted an FDA application, and received clearance for the device, it's hard to second guess the approach.

8. What other problems would you like to solve with the use of wearable technology in the future?
AbStats has many other applications beyond POI.  We are currently studying its use in an expanding array of applications, including acute pancreatitis, bowel obstructions, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity management, and so on.  There are more opportunities than there are hours in the day, so we're trying to remain strategic about how best to proceed.  Thankfully, we are well aligned with the startup, GI Logic, to move things forward.  I am also fortunate to be at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, my home institution since moving from UCLA, where most of the clinical research on AbStats was conducted.  Cedars-Sinai has been extremely supportive of AbStats and our work in digital health.  We couldn't do our research without our medical center, patients, administrative support, and technology transfer office. I am immensely grateful to Cedars-Sinai.  

More generally, wearable technology and digital health still have a long way to go, in my opinion.  I've written about that before, here. AbStats is an example of a now FDA-approved sensor supported by peer-reviewed research.  I'd like to see a similar focus on other wearables.  There are good examples, like AliveCor for heart arrhythmias, and now Proteus, which is an "ingestible."  But, for many applications in healthcare, there is still too little data about how to use wearables.  

I believe that digital health, in general, is more of a social and behavioral science than a computer or engineering science.  Truth be told, most of the sensors are now trivial.  Our sensor is a small microphone in a plastic cap.  The real "secret sauce" is in the software, how the results are generated and visualized, how they are formed into predictive algorithms, and, most importantly, how those algorithms change behavior and decision making.  Finally, there is the issue of cost and value of care. There are so many hurdles to cross, one wonders whether many sensors will run the gauntlet. AbStats, for example, may be FDA approved, but that doesn't mean we're ready to save money using the device.  We need to prove that.  We need data.  FDA approval is a regulatory hurdle, but it doesn't guarantee a device will save lives, reduce costs, reduce disability, or anything close to it.  That only comes from hard-fought science.  

9. Are clinically proven medical applications of wearable technology likely to grow in years to come?
Almost certainly, although my caveats, above, indicate this may be slower and more deliberate than some are suggesting in the digital health echo chambers.

10. For those wishing to follow in your footsteps, what would you words of wisdom be?
First, start by addressing an unmet need. Clinical need should drive technology development, not the other way around.  

Second, if you're working on patient-facing devices, then I believe you should really have first hand experience with literally putting those devices on patients.  If you're not a healthcare provider, then you should at least visit the clinical trenches and watch what happens when sensors go on patients. What happens next can be unexpected and undermine your presuppositions, as I've written about here and here.  I do not believe one can truly be a wearable expert without having literally worked with wearables.  That's like a pharmacist who has never filled a prescription, or, a cartographer who has never drawn a map.  Digital health is, by definition, about healthcare. It's about patients, about their illness and disease, and about figuring out how to insert technology into a complex workflow.  The clinical trenches are messy, gray, indistinct, dynamic, and emotional — injecting technology into that environment is exceptionally difficult and requires first-hand experience.  Digital health is a hands-on science, so look to the clinical trenches to find the unmet needs, and start working on it, step-by-step, in direct partnership with patients and their providers.

Third, make sure your device provides actionable data.  Data should guide specific clinical decisions based on valid and reliable sensor indicators.  We're trying to do that with AbStats. 

Fourth, make sure your device provides timely data. Data should be delivered at the right time, right place, and with the right visualizations.  We spent days just trying to figure out how best to visualize the data from AbStats.  And I'm still not sure we've got it right.  This stuff takes so much work. 

Fifth, if your'e making a device, make sure it's easy to use and has a favorable form factor.  It should be simple to hook up the device, it should be unobtrusive, non-invasive, with zero infection risk, comfortable, safe, and preferably disposable.  We believe that AbStats meets those standards, although there is always more work to be done.

Sixth, the wearable must be evidence-based.  A valuable sensor should be able to replace or supplement gold standard metrics, when relevant, and be supported by well designed, properly powered clinical trials.  

Finally, and most importantly, the sensor should provide health economic value to health systems.  It should be cost-effective compared to usual care.  That is the tallest yet most important hurdle to cross.  We're working on that now with AbStats.  We think it can save money by shaving time off the hospital stay and reducing readmissions.  But we need to prove it.  

[Disclosure: I have no commercial ties to any of the individuals or organizations mentioned in this post]

Enter your email address to get notified by email every time I publish a new post:

Delivered by FeedBurner