I arrived late because my plane from Sydney was delayed due to fog at Melbourne.
This no doubt led to my confusion for half the day about what was trying to be achieved. I enjoyed the speakers but couldn’t get to the nub of why we were there until later in the day.
My understanding is that we would like to create at least an online community that provided content and entrées to the best people to bring to trial innovative technologies.
People contributed many descriptions about what the online community might engage in and that will come forth from Denis Tebbutt’s report of the meeting. My own response to all these conversations was retreat into my own analysis of where to start the whole process, and that was to construct a mini (micro?) taxonomy of the variables we had to deal with at a macro level. Hence, this is my analysis.
There are two primary variables:
- The contexts that an innovation best fits, made up of
{hospitals, community settings, patients} - The type of innovation
{instruments, processes}
My notion is that depending on how an innovation matches these variables will effect what information and support the innovator will need.
Secondly, I thought at a macro level what is the current state of play for my own innovation location in these variables. So my work is with medical records and so my variable values are {hospital, processes}.
My next thoughts were about the innovations past and future in this space and the innovations my company has created.
The Past. 1st Age of Innovation for the past 40 years
We have achieved two things:
- Nearly location independent access to records;
- Nearly time independent access to records.
We have lost:
- Freedom of process change and introduced rigidity of practice;
- Readily available analytics.
The Future. 2nd Age of Innovation
- Freedom to change clinical information systems at will and hence create a mechanism for continuous process improvement.
- Analytics to support evidence based change.
Thanks to everyone for what they taught me.