Mine says 101. What the hell does that mean? It doesn't even tell you whether that number is good or not.
Saying that to a diabetic would be like asking you: The thermometer says 98.6 F is that good or bad?
I don't mean to write this guy off altogether, his heart is in the right place, his statement about "products for people's health that they love to use?" I guess is on the right track but only because it is so vague.
I work in medical technology, I have a next generation device sitting on my desk right now. But you know what? When I go to work tomorrow I'm not going to worry about the diabetic too fucking stupid to not even have a passing knowledge of what their blood glucose level means. Better UI isn't going to get the Tracy Morgans of the world to get off their asses and give a shit about their condition. If a doctor telling you the ramifications of your condition doesn't get you to care, it doesn't matter that the UI sucks, because you're not managing your condition anyway.
We are always trying to solve the wrong problem," he said. "How can we make products for people's health that they love to use?
Yes, products people like will help, and I am glad to watch when those devices hit the market. However, you think the industry is focusing on the wrong problem? We have patients so poor they resort to boiling used catheters and this guy has the balls to worry about if the high tech devices are love-able? That just pisses me off. The first problem is and always will be access. Is that how consumerist our country is now? Basic knowledge can go out the door because people can't even be arsed to stay alive unless things are love-able? I don't care, we have bigger fish to fry, there are many orders of magnitude more people without access than people squandering access.
I know there is that line of bullshit that a more attractive product will sell more units and mean more capital for whatever else; but these aren't consumer products you choose to buy, you get sick and then have to buy it. There is going to be better overall ROI for both the medical companies and the healthcare consumer by getting substantial healthcare improvements out the door.
Edit: "Siri, my friend is having a spasm on the floor as his throat closes up, he is pointing to something labled EpiPen. My heavens, what do I do?!?!"
>Likewise, he explained that around 22 percent of people don't complete their course of antibiotics, which helps to creates bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. "You have to change the way you deliver medicine."
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The thing is technology isn't going to help these 22% of people. Self responsibility and a little education would help.
The point of a lot of great tech is to help humans where they're weak. People in general are not very responsible nor do they remember well: That's why we have schools and calendars.
Not only is that an ethical nightmare, complications arising at the connection site are actually quite probable and removing the ability to disconnect as needed would be a disaster.
Healthcare is insanity much like education because the current institutions assume everyone is identical. Simply using more tech isn't the cure. There's an almost a paranoia about using resources inequally, when choosing properly can yield huge benefits. That said, tech can certainly improve things! My favorite healthcare insanity and a glimpse into what can be done story:
(for non-Brit HNers not aware of the NHS-IT project reference, the not-so-thrift previous Government launched various IT projects to 'improve' the NHS, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288 which cost £11bn, took 9+ years and was a big failure overall... mind you, they did create IT projects since they thought they sounded 'sexy' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303 - so I guess it's little wonder the main NHS-IT project failed)
Wasn't the problem tied to politics and national scale reforms (1) more than absolute improvement room in the healthcare systems ?
Maybe smaller/more innovative attempts could succeed; things like non invasive surgery, new or cheaper ways of monitoring (earlier response is often best)
at one point, all people want to be healthy, they just don't have tools to do it.
(1): I just skimmed lightly through both links btw.
This riles me every time I hear about it. I remember just watching one of the parliamentary committees on BBC Parliament and thinking why the hell are these people in charge of the biggest IT project in Britain.
I often wonder why open-source can't provide a good and cheap solution to this NHS IT problem. I know I'd happily work on something that will benefit the health of the entire population. I don't find it too hard to imagine that there are lots of other developers out there who feel the same way I do.
The ministry of defence stock control project is similarly behind schedule and overbudget - and last time they tested it they had 8Bn worth of kit the army couldn't find.
I mean how difficult is it to make a stock control system ??
IMO, the solution to most of these problems is not to make some wacky IT solution that copy's the way some huge dysfunctional organization does things, but to fix the internal problems with the organization. Unfortunately, that's just as complex as creating a useful system and takes a lot more effort from those in charge, but it's far less sexy.
EX: If your accounting software is more complex than quick books your probably doing it wrong.
Saying that to a diabetic would be like asking you: The thermometer says 98.6 F is that good or bad?
I don't mean to write this guy off altogether, his heart is in the right place, his statement about "products for people's health that they love to use?" I guess is on the right track but only because it is so vague.
I work in medical technology, I have a next generation device sitting on my desk right now. But you know what? When I go to work tomorrow I'm not going to worry about the diabetic too fucking stupid to not even have a passing knowledge of what their blood glucose level means. Better UI isn't going to get the Tracy Morgans of the world to get off their asses and give a shit about their condition. If a doctor telling you the ramifications of your condition doesn't get you to care, it doesn't matter that the UI sucks, because you're not managing your condition anyway.
We are always trying to solve the wrong problem," he said. "How can we make products for people's health that they love to use?
Yes, products people like will help, and I am glad to watch when those devices hit the market. However, you think the industry is focusing on the wrong problem? We have patients so poor they resort to boiling used catheters and this guy has the balls to worry about if the high tech devices are love-able? That just pisses me off. The first problem is and always will be access. Is that how consumerist our country is now? Basic knowledge can go out the door because people can't even be arsed to stay alive unless things are love-able? I don't care, we have bigger fish to fry, there are many orders of magnitude more people without access than people squandering access.
I know there is that line of bullshit that a more attractive product will sell more units and mean more capital for whatever else; but these aren't consumer products you choose to buy, you get sick and then have to buy it. There is going to be better overall ROI for both the medical companies and the healthcare consumer by getting substantial healthcare improvements out the door.
Edit: "Siri, my friend is having a spasm on the floor as his throat closes up, he is pointing to something labled EpiPen. My heavens, what do I do?!?!"