A report from UK highlighting some of the challenges with universal uptake of remote patient monitoring. Do we have the same challenges and is now the opportunity to address this at a system level?
NHS England have taken an interesting approach with NHS @home model, time will tell if this achieves that universal approach.
Thanks, Eileen, and this is interesting as I am an enthusiast for home monitoring. In general, introducing change in NZ is challenging beyond just the funding piece of the puzzle.
Using the people, process and technology model. We invest in technology but in isolation. There is no investment in changing the overall process, so at best, the new thing gets bolted onto BAU as an extra chore that adds burden, not value.
Investment in the people stuff is even worse. We get local change through local champions as a pet project. Alternatively, the clinician leading the change is deeply invested in the current state and has limited or no experience working in the proposed future state. So the project usually fails and most fail, with a generous side order of blame.
Lastly, the system wants to facilitate and participate, not monitor and champion improved patient outcomes. So when someone with a vested interest has a tantrum, the whole process instantly degenerates into a race to the bottom. What will the loudest, most entitled person allow the system to achieve?
I totally acknowledge my own flaws in thinking change is easy, leading to underresourced projects with overly ambitious goals and timelines. My point is that the centre needs to invest in the change process, with clear goals as part of a longterm work plan and not underinvest in ad-hoc local solutions, however well meant or how tempting the technology of the month is.
But home monitoring seems easy and is tempting…Oh dear, I wonder if there is a version of AA for innovation addicts?
@Greig - well said 
Often it’s not the process but the whole business/operational model. Is it for wellness, prevention, rehab, maintenance or shared care purposes? Most times its driven by a ‘must save costs to the system by preventing readmissions’ as the goal, but who does it benefit, and who actually looses out in productivity, social obligations/responsibilities and how is the infrastructure funded (including transaction and hosting costs), and the levels of responsibility.