Yesterday I attended Reshape 2009, a Dutch Health 2.0 conference organized by @zorg20 and others – it was put together very well (kudos to the team!). There was a good vibe and for me personal it was good to meet with national and international good friends. Some of my thoughts on the day and what’s happening to Health 2.0 (in The Netherlands and abroad).
One of the prevailing thoughts is that the audience is changing – luckily! 1.5 years ago I co-organised the first Dutch Health 2.0 event, together with what later became the Nexthealth crew (@jensmccabe, @fackeldeyfinds, @martijnhulst, @shakingtree, @jeroenkuipers, @hout) From a bunch of pioneers and enthusiasts, we’re now gradually getting to the stage where more and more suits attend. Yes, that IS a good thing :-) But we still need all the nurses, patients, family and others that are concerned with care also there.
The slogan for Reshape 2009 was “Healthcare communication is changing” – but during the day my main interest is how healthcare is a whole (not only communication) can be changed. Below I have summarized some of my main thoughts this, based on the excellent talks and workshops and Twitter responsed during the day.
My key take-aways from the sessions and talking to the speakers and attendees.
- People. People. People.
- Visualize!
- Build bridges and ignore everybody.
- Education is key.
- Impact matters, not cost.
- Data. Data. Data.
- Too few valid business models.
- Too many projects, too few startups.
Let me explain those a bit.
People. People. People.
Really, it’s not about the technology. Sure iPhone apps are great and Layar is cool and all. But what problem are you solving – and have you asked the people? (tnx @marcfonteijn). There is value in experimenting and trying stuff. But don’t pose tech stuff as a solution if there’s no real problem you’re solving. Ask the people who care (literally).
Visualize!
The picture and the thousand words story, you’ve heard it before. But really – go and ask any person who is involved in optimizing healthcare processes how long it took them before they knew what they were optimizing in the first place. All people suffer from tunnel-vision, not everybody needs or wants / to know how the whole experience looks. But it matters if you’re the one experiencing it. And we have excellent tools that help visualization. Get a Flip Video for all your patients and doctors (tnx @leeaase) and let them film their experiences. Then be sure to get a drawingboard, you’ll need it.
Build bridges and ignore everybody.
Healthcare is hierarchic. Sometimes it looks even immune to change. But when it comes from the right person it can change. Most doctors accept more from other doctors. Patients from patients. So bend it your way: get the right persons with vision and network on your team. And let them move in their network in ways that fit the network. If that’s publishing journal articles, fine. If it’s twittering, also fine. But when you’re on it: ignore everybody (tnx @gapingvoid). You’re telling a story some may not want to hear. But if you are certain it’s the right story (People, People, People, right?) – stick with it.
Education is key.
Why does (it look like) a younger generation picks up this internet stuff quicker than their parents? Because they’re raised with it. Education of medical professionals is still lacking greatly in terms of introducing health/medicine 2.0 related subjects. Training all medical professionals in their evening hours after they’ve finished regular education won’t work – sorry. The positive example here is by @berci (keywords: bright, honest, works-damn-hard) with his Medicine 2.0 course at the University of Debrecen. Seriously, why is this stuff not obligatory in every medical training? @jknl (professor Jan Kremer, gynecologist) already said once: we need to take out a year of text-book training and learn our students how to use these tools.
Impact matters – not cost.
There was ample talk on how much changing healthcare communication would cost – mainly focusing on social media such as Youtube, Facebook, etcetera. The answer: nothing (or almost: nothing). That’s not true (think: time, strategy, hardware). But the best thing: it doesn’t matter what it costs. You should choose those things that really impact what you’re doing. If that letting patients share their stories through a blog – great. If that blog is free – even better. The main take-away is that all this free internet stuff is apparently having a far greater impact on how care is given, hospitals are perceived, experiences are shared etcera. That’s why you should care. Impact, not cost.
Data. Data. Data.
Yes I know, it sounds just like People, People, People. That’s because it’s equally important. Data is key to understanding diseases, recognizing quality and improving services. Many have already understood that it’s worth more to open up your systems rather than close them down (think Google Maps or check data.gov). When you open up, people can validate, check, improve beyond what is possible if you would keep it closed. Just check the story of @epatientdave and you’ll see what I mean. @hout did an excellent session on HealthCloud, trying to get different healthcare parties open up their data. When opening up data, then the important thing can happen: building an healthcare ecosystem. People will built relevant apps fitting their own needs and beyond what is possible/imaginable from within one party.
Too few valid business models.
During #reshape09 and also outside, I see many Health2.0 related initiatives pop up. I remembered that when I was @boltyboy’s (Organizer Health 2.0 Conference) place in 2008, I saw the volunteer t-shirt from the 2007 edition. And I noticed how many sponsors had disappeared comparing the 2007 and 2008 shirts. Many startups and new ideas fail. Sometimes because of bad luck or wrong timing, but far too often from simply not having a valid business model. I see lots of start-ups on a shoestring who add great value, but struggle to make it stick financially. In a financial complex healthcare system such as the Netherlands this is particularly hard. But this doesn’t take away the need for a valid business model for healthcare (DISCLAIMER: I did my thesis on hospital business models). It needs all the elements: from what value it adds, to how it’s financed. It’s hard but relevant. Who said that healthcare is not a business?
Too many projects, too few startups.
In Dutch healthcare there’s an explosion of healthcare innovation projects. Many of these projects take place inside current organizations. Some are real innovations, some are improvement or optimization projects. Disruptive innovations often don’t thrive well within existing structures. That’s why we need more startups that take on the healthcare system from the outside, such as SOS-arts. Disruption takes a long time, especially in healthcare and that is not possible without the proper investments. For that we need VCs. It’s a chicken or egg problem: we need people that dare to build a healthcare startup and we needs VCs to invest in them. But one won’t go without the other.
I’d love to hear your thoughts!
