Innovation by its very nature is disruptive and unproven. I like innovation in business as it creates real opportunities to enter or expand existing markets. However a lot of innovation fails, that's just its nature.
I think this is the principal concern as far as the NHS is concerned, and you will know better than me.
How do you introduce innovation that if it fails will not materially effect the health and lives of those requiring health services?
I don't think it has to be that way. If you think of a clinical trial, for instance, even those in the control group aren't losing out as they get the best that's currently available, they're just being compared with a new approach that could be better. At the moment that's how most innovations operate in the NHS, with pilots undertaken to prove effectiveness before it's scaled up. The process is far from ideal as that dissemination is largely incredibly hard, but it's very rare that anything unproven will get implemented.
It makes sense to look wherever for insights though. Only this week I reviewed a new lighting system that in addition to lighting a room, will also disinfect it very quickly and effectively. Given the huge cost and health risks of hospital infection, this could be hugely beneficial. Should it be discounted because it's made by a US company? I'd say most folks would rationally say not.
Except, of course, we discover that not only does the government bug everything and everyone through legalised backdoors in the hardware or software (naturally, just to thwart paedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists), businesses are now busy selling all that information that you clicked Yes to when you agreed to use the app and didn't read the T&C. As the old (in internet years) saying goes, if you can't work out how something is making money, you are what is being sold.
And the push for profit-centres in the NHS turns into flogging off your patient details for pennies to data mining companies who then happily sell them on for stairlift retailers to bombard invalids with nuisance calls.
I think we have to be careful not to scaremonger here. We're in an environment where patients have only this past few weeks been given unbridled access to their patient records in the NHS. The sharing of data internally is pretty appalling. To use an example,
The Economist reviewed a number of papers this week talking about the crucial importance of the first 1000 days of a childs life (the 9 months pre-birth and the first few years of their life).
Do you think that midwives, health visitors and GPs share information on mums/babies to ensure those first 1000 years are great? Do they buggery. This is basic stuff, and doesn't even touch on the potential use of that data should data scientists get hold of it and start to extrapolate trends, ensure resources are focused in the right areas and so on.
Instead, policy makers are having to use things like Google searchers or tweets to try and extrapolate things like the spread of flu throughout a community. We should be able to do better than that, and I know Tim Kelsey has pulled his hair out over the politics and scaremongering around health data that is completely uncalled for.
This is especially problematic in clinical trials, where it's still very rare for trial data to be shared, especially for failed trials, so companies have no idea if anyone else has already gone down that blind alley, thus there's very little learning from mistakes going on. It's a major issue.
.....I think the fundamental point of the state running a service is that it is a service, it is not a profit making business. If the railway is a national 'service' it will run non profit making routes because the public in remote areas need that transport to get to work.
The NHS can't be a bottomless pit, it has to be efficient but ultimately it is a 'service' with the prime objective of meeting the requirements of the nation.
I don't think it's either or. Most of the incredible services offered in India are for-profit, and yet they still manage to deliver fantastic care for much less than we do. Buurtzog in Belgium is a private, yet non-profit, community nursing organisation that are equally highly regarded.
The NHS should look to deliver the best care possible for the best price possible. Where that care comes from should be irrelevant imo.
