"But eventually, when you avoid change and risk for so long - the lack of it, can actually become the risk itself." 👏👏👏
So agreed! Dana Lewis, who has type 1 diabetes and is one of the inventors of the open-source artificial pancreas system, has written about this concept when applied to diabetes technology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.14687
"The safety conversation should also include a discussion of errors of omission or commission. Healthcare providers and regulators may prefer to approach risk with a policy of 'don't add a new thing if it adds risk or harm' (to minimize the risks of committing an error of commission). But doing that when the safety benefits would exceed the added risks yields a greater error of omission, and creates clinical inertia. When you know based on available data that commercial and open source automated insulin delivery systems are safer and more effective than manually dosing insulin, refusing to discuss these systems or trying to block patients from using these systems becomes an error of omission."
Thanks for sharing Jas and that is such a great article & example! The risk:benefit ratio seems too often grossly distorted. And whilst "do no harm" is the oath of health professionals, there is in fact no way to do that unless it is via omission
That issue of omission, commission/commercialisation, and legal responsibilities are a lethal combination - hindering progress. Its a shame that somehow these voices too often get buried
Was just clearing out my inbox and found this: intended to mull it over a few days and now its been nearly a month...oops
1. I think generally for health tech, more understanding of health technology by health professionals would be great. I'm hopeful this will change their minds about the risk. For example, understand that often, the technology automating processes/decisions is less risky than a human guessing.
2. It would be amazing if the tech companies could make the burden less for health professionals too: for example, having to download and learn to use lots of different apps or programs to understand their patient's data seems to be a big barrier to uptake and understanding.
Things will change when individual medical professionals believe they will be better compensated (money+impact+status) by working in healthtech than as traditionally trained clinicians.
Favorite read of the year 💪🏼 Hit so many nails on the head.. although so many sad truths to swallow
Thanks so much 😊🙏 that's beyond kind and made my year 😂 glad you think so... But that's it hey. And we're only scratching the surface
Emily, I cannot tell you how inspirational of a read this is. Thank you. Yisha
Aww thank you Yisha! Thats very kind. I am so glad you enjoyed :)
"But eventually, when you avoid change and risk for so long - the lack of it, can actually become the risk itself." 👏👏👏
So agreed! Dana Lewis, who has type 1 diabetes and is one of the inventors of the open-source artificial pancreas system, has written about this concept when applied to diabetes technology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.14687
"The safety conversation should also include a discussion of errors of omission or commission. Healthcare providers and regulators may prefer to approach risk with a policy of 'don't add a new thing if it adds risk or harm' (to minimize the risks of committing an error of commission). But doing that when the safety benefits would exceed the added risks yields a greater error of omission, and creates clinical inertia. When you know based on available data that commercial and open source automated insulin delivery systems are safer and more effective than manually dosing insulin, refusing to discuss these systems or trying to block patients from using these systems becomes an error of omission."
Thanks for sharing Jas and that is such a great article & example! The risk:benefit ratio seems too often grossly distorted. And whilst "do no harm" is the oath of health professionals, there is in fact no way to do that unless it is via omission
That issue of omission, commission/commercialisation, and legal responsibilities are a lethal combination - hindering progress. Its a shame that somehow these voices too often get buried
How do you think we help fix this?
Was just clearing out my inbox and found this: intended to mull it over a few days and now its been nearly a month...oops
1. I think generally for health tech, more understanding of health technology by health professionals would be great. I'm hopeful this will change their minds about the risk. For example, understand that often, the technology automating processes/decisions is less risky than a human guessing.
2. It would be amazing if the tech companies could make the burden less for health professionals too: for example, having to download and learn to use lots of different apps or programs to understand their patient's data seems to be a big barrier to uptake and understanding.
3. I think also as devices become more accessible and affordable we will see more demand from people who previously couldn't afford the technology, and better promotion from health professionals. The recent election promises about diabetes health tech are super exciting: https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/news/diabetes-australia-welcomes-bipartisan-commitment-to-cgmforall/
Emily, Spot on! We should to talk. I would love to learn more about your mission and share mine. I expect we might find ways to collaborate.
Let’s connect on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/pjstevenson
Thanks Pete! Always love a good yarn and learning more about fab people doing cool things
Feel free to flick me a note @ emily@whatthehealth.io 😊
Things will change when individual medical professionals believe they will be better compensated (money+impact+status) by working in healthtech than as traditionally trained clinicians.
Brilliant article! Thanks Emily!
Thanks Tim 😊🙌 glad you liked