Is technology killing the NHS?

I believe some are doing the many NHS staff a dis-service in comments about adopting and using technology. I believe past experiences of 'having technology imposed and one to them without consultation and involvement in the concept and design phase (customer-centric design and development) has manifested many of the technology project failures and rejection. A technological evolution/revolution in healthcare has already begun in parts of the NHS and the wider healthcare sector, needs to spread wider and deeper, but in a way that is empathetic and inclusive. This medical technology evolution needs to build on examples of technology insertion best practice and success cases, to find the win win scenario so that technology is seen as adding value and benefit, not a threat and replicating an inefficient manual system. 
https://digitalsurgery.com/2018/05/21/a-technological-revolution-in-healthcare/ 


This statement in the article above resinated with me "Because of the confusion that VR/AR and AI cause physicians and administrators, they will require intrepid entrepreneurs who are fluent in both technology and medicine to meld these worlds in order to find the most useful applications for these emerging technologies." 


Perhaps technologists need to use less 'geek speak' and engage using the vocabulary of their customers to gain credibility and their confidence, then perhaps technology will become more acceptable and designed better for the NHS?  https://www.health.org.uk/publications/nhs-at-70-what-will-new-technology-mean-for-the-nhs-and-its-patients


Telemedicine, GP appointments by Skype, personal body-worn medical monitoring, auto-blood condition monitoring and treatment, MRI scanners, keyhole surgery, etc, etc are all part of the adoption of technology. However, these are all stovepipe approaches, not within a system-of-systems strategy and technology architecture. Thus, perhaps technologists need to better understand the requirements and needs of their customers before offering and designing systems without user input, and using a spiral evolution approach starting with small quick wins to bud confidence then evolving based on increasing confidence and evidence of value added and cost benefit.  


If the UK military and support to medical centres in conflict zones can use technology to provide remote tele-medicine to battlefield hospitals, it shows the enormous benefits technology can provide, its just a case of how to implement this across the NHS.  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dr-waheed-arian-saving-afghan-lives-over-the-phone-dxknlql9s


With an increasing cradle to grave care customer base, more ageing people with more complex multiple-illnesses, a population increasingly impacted by childhood to pensioner lifestyle issues, the cumulative impact of our food sector, more sedentary lifestyles, etc, etc, the burden is increasing on flat lining technology investment. If the UK healthcare system is not to collapse under the current very manual and low technology healthcare approach, it needs to urgently embrace many of, or similar, current and new technologies we all routinely take for granted at home and work.


As I first commented, why does it take 4 hours to have a high priority emergency actioned in A&E and not use data provided by technology from another part of the healthcare system?


If I can access my personal media, my home, and work information anywhere in the world, why is it so difficult to provide a simple corporate UK healthcare IT system that allows me to walk into any GP, walk-in clinic, A&E department, hospital ward, optician, dentist, etc, and have my medical records instantly and securely available and updated anywhere in the UK, or even the world? Why do I have to waste the time of my GP staff to routinely monitor my bloods, urine, blood pressure, diet, weight, etc, when I can already buy devices that can be 'smart linked' for use at home and accessible remotely? We need to push routine healthcare monitoring, support and intervention out of hospitals to the community care and patients supported by effective technology support that is linked to the UK healthcare system for monitoring and intervention as needed. This will allow hospitals and specialist units to focus on the non-routine and more serious interventions supported by effective technology, personal medical data and smart data to make the 'entrance to exit' journey faster, safer, smarter, more effective, audited and transparent. 


However, we need to understand the barriers to evolution and technology acceptance and NHS staff concerns and turn negative attitude resistance into positive attitude embracement. More technology does not mean less staff, more technology and same, but more effective, staff means a better chance of dealing with the ever growing national NHS population care burden.


The other side of this two-edged sword is that a more technological NHS needs to be supported by cost effective medical technology solutions - whilst we often ask "why are drugs so expensive" and conclude (and there is evidence) the Pharma industry is ripping off the NHS, why is medical technology so expensive?

I believe some are doing the many NHS staff a dis-service in comments about adopting and using technology. I believe past experiences of 'having technology imposed and one to them without consultation and involvement in the concept and design phase (customer-centric design and development) has manifested many of the technology project failures and rejection. A technological evolution/revolution in healthcare has already begun in parts of the NHS and the wider healthcare sector, needs to spread wider and deeper, but in a way that is empathetic and inclusive. This medical technology evolution needs to build on examples of technology insertion best practice and success cases, to find the win win scenario so that technology is seen as adding value and benefit, not a threat and replicating an inefficient manual system. 
https://digitalsurgery.com/2018/05/21/a-technological-revolution-in-healthcare/ 


This statement in the article above resinated with me "Because of the confusion that VR/AR and AI cause physicians and administrators, they will require intrepid entrepreneurs who are fluent in both technology and medicine to meld these worlds in order to find the most useful applications for these emerging technologies." 


Perhaps technologists need to use less 'geek speak' and engage using the vocabulary of their customers to gain credibility and their confidence, then perhaps technology will become more acceptable and designed better for the NHS?  https://www.health.org.uk/publications/nhs-at-70-what-will-new-technology-mean-for-the-nhs-and-its-patients


Telemedicine, GP appointments by Skype, personal body-worn medical monitoring, auto-blood condition monitoring and treatment, MRI scanners, keyhole surgery, etc, etc are all part of the adoption of technology. However, these are all stovepipe approaches, not within a system-of-systems strategy and technology architecture. Thus, perhaps technologists need to better understand the requirements and needs of their customers before offering and designing systems without user input, and using a spiral evolution approach starting with small quick wins to bud confidence then evolving based on increasing confidence and evidence of value added and cost benefit.  


If the UK military and support to medical centres in conflict zones can use technology to provide remote tele-medicine to battlefield hospitals, it shows the enormous benefits technology can provide, its just a case of how to implement this across the NHS.  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dr-waheed-arian-saving-afghan-lives-over-the-phone-dxknlql9s


With an increasing cradle to grave care customer base, more ageing people with more complex multiple-illnesses, a population increasingly impacted by childhood to pensioner lifestyle issues, the cumulative impact of our food sector, more sedentary lifestyles, etc, etc, the burden is increasing on flat lining technology investment. If the UK healthcare system is not to collapse under the current very manual and low technology healthcare approach, it needs to urgently embrace many of, or similar, current and new technologies we all routinely take for granted at home and work.


As I first commented, why does it take 4 hours to have a high priority emergency actioned in A&E and not use data provided by technology from another part of the healthcare system?


If I can access my personal media, my home, and work information anywhere in the world, why is it so difficult to provide a simple corporate UK healthcare IT system that allows me to walk into any GP, walk-in clinic, A&E department, hospital ward, optician, dentist, etc, and have my medical records instantly and securely available and updated anywhere in the UK, or even the world? Why do I have to waste the time of my GP staff to routinely monitor my bloods, urine, blood pressure, diet, weight, etc, when I can already buy devices that can be 'smart linked' for use at home and accessible remotely? We need to push routine healthcare monitoring, support and intervention out of hospitals to the community care and patients supported by effective technology support that is linked to the UK healthcare system for monitoring and intervention as needed. This will allow hospitals and specialist units to focus on the non-routine and more serious interventions supported by effective technology, personal medical data and smart data to make the 'entrance to exit' journey faster, safer, smarter, more effective, audited and transparent. 


However, we need to understand the barriers to evolution and technology acceptance and NHS staff concerns and turn negative attitude resistance into positive attitude embracement. More technology does not mean less staff, more technology and same, but more effective, staff means a better chance of dealing with the ever growing national NHS population care burden.


The other side of this two-edged sword is that a more technological NHS needs to be supported by cost effective medical technology solutions - whilst we often ask "why are drugs so expensive" and conclude (and there is evidence) the Pharma industry is ripping off the NHS, why is medical technology so expensive?