David Haselwood | Global Animal Vaccines Market to witness Impressive Growth by 2016 – 2024

Zion Market Research, the market research group announced the analysis report titled “Animal Vaccines Market: Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2015 – 2021”

Vaccination has been one of the most important conciliations in disease prevention that has ever been developed.The effectiveness of vaccination is seen by the reduction in disease.Animal vaccines provide protection against various diseases such as rabies, feline panleukopenia, feline viral rhinotracheitis, feline calicivirus infection, canine distemper, canine parvovirus infection, and canine hepatitis. Hence, most of the animal doctors recommend vaccines depending on the type and severity of the disease.

Animal vaccines can be made available without large, controlled dispute studies that are mandatory prior to the release of human vaccines. Animal vaccines are controlled by the US Department of Agriculture, which hardly requires the vaccines to be shown to be safe and pure, and have a “reasonable expectation” of efficacy prior to their release.Nevertheless, the clinical relevancy or applicability of a particular vaccine may not necessarily be assured by the licensing process. This fact makes it easier for the manufacturers to provide animal vaccines and meet the rising demand in the global market.

Based on the type of vaccine, the global animal vaccines market is segmented as inactivated vaccines, toxoid vaccines, live attenuated vaccines, subunit vaccines, and others. The others segment is further sub-segmented as conjugate vaccines, recombinant vaccines, and DNA vaccines. Of which, the DNA vaccines segment is anticipated to account for the highest growth in the near future. On the basis of disease category, the global market is segmented as anthrax vaccines, rabies vaccine, brucellosis vaccine, DA2PPC vaccine, clostridium vaccine, and others. Based on the product type, the market is further segmented as companion animal, porcine, livestock, equine, poultry, aquaculture, and other animal vaccines. Owing to the rising number of pet owners worldwide, the companion animal segment proves to be largest and the fastest growing segment in the global market.

The growth of global animal vaccines market is expected to boost owing to the increase in the livestock population and frequent occurrence of livestock diseases. In addition, factors such as rising prevalence of zoonotic diseases, various initiatives were taken up by different government agencies and animal associations, and the introduction of new vaccine types also impact the growth of the market in a positive way. Moreover, technological innovations, growing awareness regarding animal health in the emerging countries, etc. are some other factors boosting the market growth. Read More.......

David Haselwood | New Role to Develop International MedTech Partnerships

Developing more international partnerships and investor opportunities for medical technology is the focus of Dr Diana Siews new role as strategic partnership specialist for the University of Aucklands bioengineering institute.Media Release – University of Auckland – 20 March 2017
New role to develop international MedTech partnerships

Developing more international partnerships and investor opportunities for medical technology is the focus of Dr Diana Siew’s new role as strategic partnership specialist for the University of Auckland’s bioengineering institute.
Her role with the Auckland Bioengineering Institute (ABI ) will contribute to growth of the MedTech Centre of Research Excellence (MedTech CoRE) and the Consortium for Medical Device Technologies (CMDT).
She has a strong innovation, research management and relationship management background in New Zealand’s medical technology sector.
Dr Siew will retain her role as co-chair of the CMDT that sits alongside the MedTech CoRE. She is also an Associate Director for the MedTech CoRE, responsible for strategic partnerships and seed funding.
Dr Siew is an alumna of the University of Auckland with a doctorate in Chemistry and many years’ experience in New Zealand’s medtech environment, including past roles with Industrial Research Ltd and Callaghan Innovation.
“My new focus will be working alongside the ABI to progress the MedTech CoRE and CMDT,” she says. “Five years ago, Professor Peter Hunter and I co-founded the CMDT to reduce the isolation of medical technology research institutions around the country.”
“Feedback from multi-nationals then was that they found it hard to work in New Zealand with its large number of different research organisations in the medical health technology space,” she says. “They sometimes didn’t know where to start to find all the people for a particular focus.”
“We developed the CMDT as a national network to highlight New Zealand’s medtech activity and connect companies, the research industry, health providers and government stakeholders,” she says. “It’s the NZ Inc front for medtech research in this country and makes it easier for multi-national companies to work here.”
The CMDT is led by a partnership of the University of Auckland with the universities of Canterbury, Otago, AUT, Victoria University of Wellington and Callaghan Innovation.
“It sits alongside the MedTech CoRE which is the translational research pipeline of new technologies for the medtech sector,” says Dr Siew. “We now have a high level of trust in the network and transparency between the partners,” says Dr Siew.
Earlier this month, the CMDT partners hosted a workshop for a group of Japanese researchers, companies and funders to support a collaboration between the two countries, focussed on developing new technologies for elderly care.
Another of Dr Siew’s achievements while at Callaghan Innovation was founding the Standing Trial Population Centres that support fast early-stage validation studies of medical devices and digital health systems to accelerate technology development for both health and economic outcomes.
“This platform accelerates the ability of a medtech company to get quick validation for prototypes and concepts that they are working on,” she says. “This reduces the time and expense in identifying clinical expertise and recruiting patients.”
It is an easy access tool for multi-nationals to see the four main areas where the Standing Trials Population Centres operate – in technologies for elderly care, rehabilitation innovation, and remote community care, and design and development for new devices.
Waikato District Health Board’s Institute of Healthy Ageing and AUT are key partners to two of the Standing Trials Populations Centres.
Another initiative developed by Dr Siew for medtech in New Zealand, is a showcase on the latest technologies available in New Zealand. Read More....

David Haselwood | Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Delivery: Where Might it Take Us, and What Happens if We Get There?

It is difficult to avoid the specter of “artificial intelligence” (AI) these days, and for those working in the health care sector, there is no exception. Health care delivery has been impacted by a variety of tools that use some form of AI for many years. Further, recent advances in hardware and computer science development have increased the likelihood of even more significant impact. Today, some health diagnostic tools using advanced AI systems in research settings perform as well as their human counterparts, and sometimes better; in the future, performance will continue to improve, and the scope of activities subject to this kind of automation will likely increase.

Currently, advanced AI systems are being used in health care delivery settings in very discrete ways, and are designed to provide practitioners with more and better information with which to make decisions. The function of the practitioner remains unchanged and familiar—the practitioner is the final authority with respect to the provision of diagnostic and treatment service. The practitioner’s judgment remains paramount.

It is, therefore, easy to be lulled into a false sense of security regarding the application of legal and regulatory standards with what seems to be nothing more than the addition of another tool in a practitioner’s bag. There are, however, reasons to take a more critical view and to consider what the future may hold—because the future and the expanded potential of AI systems in health care deliver is likely not as far away as we might think.

Whose Judgment?

Any professional is held to a standard of care that, at its most fundamental level, recognizes that the professional will exercise his or her judgment in the performance of the profession. That judgment is exercised in the context of past and ongoing learning, training, experience and the utilization of existing tools that assist the professional in exercising that judgment. The professional takes the facts and circumstances and weighs various conclusions regarding a course of action. In this context, AI tools can be extremely beneficial—particularly in the health care context—as they can speed analysis, expand the knowledge base of the provider and speed the review of vast amounts of data.

For liability and licensure purposes, however, the practitioner must never lose sight of his or her own responsibility and always exercise independent judgment. The practitioner must not delegate to the AI system the essential function of being a licensed professional and making the final call. While this may be a simple concept to express, as AI system functionality continues to improve, and expand on their clinical diagnostic and even treatment plan capabilities, it may be a harder concept to implement as time goes on.

Experience indicates that technology will continue in its development as a ubiquitous tool. We accept information technology into our professional and personal lives with ease. Studies indicate that younger generations adopt technology with ease and confidence; and demand that these technologies be made available to them in a variety of contexts. It appears that, unless there is a law against it—and even if there is—someone is going to build an app, and people will use it. The health care sector is not immune to this trend, even though the significant regulatory environment makes rapid and systemically valuable adoption difficult. This pressure for adoption will only increase as AI systems continue to develop, improve and demonstrate their effectiveness in the health care delivery setting.

Clearly, there is nothing wrong with relying on proven technology; but at what point do we, as a society, accept that proven technology can replace the judgment of a licensed professional? If an AI system proves to be more effective and reliable than a human physician at a certain function, then should we not rely on the AI system’s judgment?

Oversight and Standards of Care

Regulation is largely about allocating responsibility among actors, and ensuring that certain actors have the requisite skills, knowledge, assets, qualifications or other protections in place given the nature of what they are doing. We regulate health care practitioners, financial institutions, insurers, lawyers, automobile salesmen, private investigators and others because we believe, as a society, that these actors—human or corporate—in exercising their judgment should be held to heightened standards. Accordingly, not only are these actors subject to potentially more exacting standards of care, but also they frequently must be licensed, demonstrate a certain financial stability or otherwise prove a degree of trustworthiness.

Similarly, we hold products to a more exacting standard. In health care in particular, not only do we require medical devices to prove their efficacy and safety, but we also require that their manufacture adhere to certain quality standards. Further, certain products may be held to a standard of “strict liability” if they do not function properly. Accordingly, the developers or manufacturers of these products face significant liability for the failures of their products.

A health care practitioner’s standard of care is an evolving standard, and one that does not exclude the appropriate utilization of technology in the care setting—indeed, it may eventually require it if the technology establishes itself in common usage. It is possible to foresee advanced, judgment-rendering AI systems integrated into the care setting. The question we must ask is whether our existing legal and regulatory tools provide an appropriate and effective environment in which these tools are deployed.

Allocating Responsibility

At some point, under some circumstances, AI systems will start to look more like a practitioner than a device—they will be capable of, and we will expect them to, render judgments in a health care context. The AI system will analyze symptoms, data and medical histories and determine treatment plans. In such a circumstance, is it fair to burden the treating practitioner with the liability for the patient’s care that is determined by the AI system? Are existing “product liability” standards appropriate for such AI systems?

This latter question is relevant given the “black box” nature of advanced AI systems. The so-called AI “black box” references the difficulty or inability to access the workings of the AI system, as we may otherwise do with other software systems. The reason for this is the nature of some of these AI systems, which are frequently systems that utilize neural networks. In essence, neural networks are large layers of interconnected nodes. The nodes are subject to generally fairly simple functions, but by inputting a great deal of information and “training” the network, these relative unsophisticated interconnected layers of nodes can produce remarkably sophisticated results.

While these neural networks can produce excellent results, their “reasons” for coming up with a conclusion are not easily discernable. In a sense, these new AI systems become functional and effective in a manner similar to the manner a human does. We learn, for example, what a dog is by seeing dogs and being told that these are dogs. The same is true of neural network AI systems. While we may learn later that dogs share common features and are categorized in certain ways, we recognize dogs on the basis of experience; and the same is true for AI systems. Unpacking why an AI system misidentifies a cat as a dog, accordingly, can be very difficult—in essence it is an exercise in understanding why a neural network rendered a judgment.

In this context, it is fair to ask whether a judgment-rendering AI system in any sector should be held to the same standard as other products. We may want to consider any number of factors and actors when determining how to allocate responsibility. We may want to allocate responsibility among the practitioner, the developer of the AI system, the “trainer” of the AI system, the “maintainer” of the AI system and, perhaps, the AI system itself.

How to Regulate: Start Asking the Questions

Achieving a reasonable approach to effectively regulate new dynamics in health care delivery will require thinking carefully about how best to regulate AI systems and care delivery as this technology continues to advance and become capable of taking over certain “professional” functions. A number of factors must be taken into consideration.

1. The existing oversight regime: Right now, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the manufacture and distribution of medical devices, including software, intended to be utilized for the diagnosis, treatment, cure of prevention of disease or other condition. FDA approval or clearance of a medical device does not necessarily limit physician utilization of a product for off-label purposes. State medical boards regulate the practice of medicine, assuring that the physician community is adhering to appropriate standards of care. Both of these regulatory bodies will need to review their approaches to regulation in order to effectively integrate AI systems into care delivery.

2. The ubiquity of AI in the IoT: While some AI systems may be discrete pieces of system machinery, it would be a mistake to ignore AI penetration into the “internet of things” (IoT) and the larger digital landscape, and the related penetration of the IoT into health care through patient engagement, data tracking, wellness and preventative care tools and communication tools. In short, we need to recognize that increasingly sophisticated levels of “health care” are increasingly taking place away from hospitals, doctors’ offices and other traditional care settings, and not under the direct supervision of health care professionals.

Directly related to this, of course, is the utilization and maintenance of data. AI health care tools integrated within the IoT will likely be privy to massive amounts of data—but under what approval and subject to what restrictions? Frequently, even the most isolated AI tools in health care rely on massive data sets. Accordingly, data privacy and security issues will increase in importance and consideration of how the existing privacy and security regulatory regime applies to advanced AI systems will necessitate a forward-thinking approach.

3. Liability and insurance: Given the black box nature of AI systems and the unique ways they are developed to perform their functions, determining liability becomes complicated. As noted above, different actors, performing different functions come into play, and the role and function of the health care practitioner may begin to change given the nature of some of these AI systems. The practitioner may take on responsibility for AI system training or testing, for example. How liability should be allocated in such a complex environment is a difficult question, and one that will likely evolve over time.

Further, the standards for liability may need to be reconsidered, and the standards of care for the delivery of care may need to undergo radical transformation in the future if AI systems prove themselves able to function at a higher level of quality than their human counterparts. As the interaction between human physician and AI systems evolve, the standard of care can easily become quite complex and confusing.

4. The robot doctor: Political and legal theorists are already seriously contemplating imbuing AI systems with legal attributes of personhood. While fully sentient and sapient robots may be far off in the future, legal rights and responsibilities do not require such features. For example, we provide corporate bodies and animals with legal rights and responsibilities. We also discriminate among different groups of “people” (e.g., between citizens and non-citizens; between pets and wild animals). In fact, the notion of rights and responsibilities for an AI system may assist in designing an appropriate regulatory environment.

Similarly, we may borrow from human-based liability standards to evaluate whether an AI system caused event is actionable. Given the manner in which neural networks are trained and their black box nature, a “reasonable robot” standard of care may become an effective way in determining whether a wrong has occurred.

The Future of Health Care Professionals

We have not yet reached the age of the machine, and our health care is still best served by rich engagement between patient and well-educated, trained and equipped health care professionals. Health care professionals have the opportunity to shape the way AI systems can best be used in care delivery, and also to shape the way future AI systems can best be utilized in the future as they continue to improve and evolve.

David Haselwood | How to Succeed with a Healthcare Start-Up

Healthcare entrepreneurship is the most successful field today, says David Haselwood. He adds, it is the only field where an individual maintains a balance between social responsibility and profitability. David Haselwood is a recognized healthcare entrepreneur who is currently serving as the chief financial officer and chief operating officer at Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. He began his career as an investment banker. According to David Haselwood, healthcare entrepreneur is one of the blooming career nowadays and how healthcare startups are prospering immensely.

Healthcare startups have boomed extensively in the previous years and the reason behind their success is the rapidly increasing demand. No matter, how small is the startup, but its demand completely depends on the quality of the products and services.

 

Lets us know what statistics say about healthcare entrepreneurship:

According to David haselwood around 200% venture funding deals in healthcare startups has increased between 2010 and 2014. Over the last several years, health care startups has grown rapidly and this progress is driven by the health reforms that is making excellent changes. Other than this, another reason behind the successful growth in healthcare entrepreneurship is demand of increased population. With the increasing demand, care and technology, the industry is booming.

This can be considered as the golden age for healthcare startups says David Haselwood as with the decline in the cost of technology, chances to build new companies goes higher. It is easy to initiate a startup when you have all the tools to build a company and the required ingredients. These facilities and reforms are bringing revolution in healthcare entrepreneurship. In the year 2014, $6.5 billion was invested in new healthcare venture which was increased over 125% in the year 2013.

David Haselwood noted that the healthcare industry continues to be the one providing biggest opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors. Earlier due to over employment and declining productivity was damaging healthcare system but now more productivity, and reforms in medicine as well as technology is showing good changes.

Work and dedication of some healthcare entrepreneurs showed good changes in the field and changed the trends completely. There has been a great transformation in the healthcare entrepreneurship throughout the world that led the boom in the industry. “We believe we can transform healthcare entrepreneurship and encourage the establishment of more startups by supporting the entrepreneurs”, says David Haselwood. Needs of healthcare entrepreneurs are different than other entrepreneurs and their challenges are peculiar. Other than this, there are many other challenges faced by entrepreneurs engaged in healthcare.

David Haselwood offers you advises that help you in making it up with a startup in the industry:

Build Momentum:

There are always two camps says David Haselwood. One is startup friendly that provides the idea and energy to help the entrepreneurs figure out how to work on these ideas. On the other side, whole camp is of resisters; people who are far away from creativity and ideas or concepts of the company.

David Haselwood says, “Our objective is to connect with more of former camp people and build the momentum”.  Try to find out startup friendly sources and willing to lean-in with you.  That is where you need to put your resources.

 Say yes to regulations:

To be into healthcare entrepreneurship you must go through the Food and drug administration’s rules to the affordable Care Act. Healthcare comes with a host of regulations. Healthcare is the industry full of rules, but rules can be entrepreneur’s friend. So, rather getting spooked by the concept of regulations, just go through the process without any hesitation and if you know how to work through that process, it's not that difficult," said David Haselwood. "It can be a competitive advantage."

 Healthcare demands patience:

You might have heard about many stories like “Slack grew from zero to a billion dollars in nine months,’’ said David Haselwood. In the healthcare industry sale cycle is elongated, as there are many regulatory hurdles that take a significant time and the resistance to change is high. There should be an intense amount of patience to be an entrepreneur in general, and in health care even more so.

 Be open:

To be a successful entrepreneur you need to be open to being coached. There are two key elements that make a successful healthcare entrepreneur: being collaborative and coachable. Be open to other experts, ideas and suggestions. Listen really well at every stage. "It's very difficult to be a rugged individualist in this sector, in particular. It helps to be part of an army of entrepreneurs working together."



David Haselwood is a healthcare entrepreneur who is involved in the industry from many years. He is well known of the facts and scopes of the industry. He says, “This is the industry where an individual can earn and fulfil his social responsibilities.

 

David Haselwood | Making Connections Between Health and Environment

David Haselwood | Fixation Patterns and Reading Rates in Eyes with Central Scotomas from Advanced Atrophic Age-related Macular Degeneration and Stargardt Disease

Purpose: To study fixation patterns and reading rates in eyes with central scotomas from geographic atrophy (GA) of age-related macular degeneration and to compare fixation patterns with those of patients with Stargardt disease.

Methods: Scanning laser ophthalmoscope analysis of fixation patterns in eyes with 20/80 to 20/200 visual acuity. Included were 41 eyes of 35 patients with GA and 10 eyes of 5 patients with Stargardt disease. The patients with GA also were tested for maximum reading rate, and the size of the areas of atrophy were measured by fundus photograph analysis.

Results: Sixty-three percent of GA eyes fixating outside the atrophy placed the scotoma to the right of fixation in visual field space, 22% placed the scotoma above fixation, and 15% placed it to the left, regardless of the laterality of the GA eye. Fixation was stable in subsequent years of testing for scotoma placement to the right of or above fixation. All GA eyes fixated immediately adjacent to the atrophy. In contrast, seven of ten eyes with Stargardt disease fixated at a considerable distance from the scotoma border, with the dense scotoma far above the fixation site in visual field space.

For the patients with GA, the maximum reading rate was highly correlated with size of the atrophic area, but not with age or visual acuity within the limited visual acuity range tested. There was a trend to more rapid reading with the scotoma above fixation and slower reading with the scotoma to the left.

Conclusion: There is a preference for fixation with the scotoma to the right in eyes with GA. Patients with Stargardt disease use different strategies for fixation, perhaps due to subdinical pathology adjacent to the atrophic regions.

The size of the atrophic area in GA plays the predominant role in reading rate for eyes that have already lost foveal vision.

Presented in part as a poster at the American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Oct/Nov 1995.

Supported by research grants NEI EY08552 (Drs. Sunness, Applegate, and Haselwood) and EY06380 (Drs. Rubin and Sunness), Bethesda, Maryland; and from the Hang and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Baltimore , Maryland, the Altsheler-Durell Foundation, Louisville, Kentucky, the Grousbeck Family Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Macula Foundation, New York, New York, for work with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

The authors have no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of any product mentioned in this article. Read More.....,

David Haselwood | Visual Function Abnormalities and Prognosis in Eyes with Age-related Geographic Atrophy of the Macula and Good Visual Acuity

Purpose: Geographic atrophy (GA) may cause significant compromise of visual function, even when there still is good visual acuity (VA), because of parafoveal scotomas and foveal function abnormalities antedating visible atrophy. This study evaluates the visual function abnormalities at baseline and the 2-year worsening of VA and reading rate for eyes with GA compared with a group of eyes with drusen only.

Methods: Seventy-four eyes with GA and VA greater than or equal to 20/50 from a prospective natural history study of GA were included, as were 13 eyes with only drusen. Baseline visual function testing and 2-year VA and maximum reading rate are reported.

Results: The worsening of VA in decreased luminance and foveal dark-adapted sensitivity showed severe abnormalities for the GA group. Contrast sensitivity was significantly reduced for the eyes with GA. Half the eyes with GA, but none of the drusen eyes, had maximum reading rates below 100 words per minute. A scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) measure of the scotoma near fixation combined with a measure of residual foveal function accounted for 54% of the variability in maximum reading rate in the eyes with GA.

Of 40 eyes with GA observed for 2 years, half lost greater than or equal to 3 lines of VA and one quarter lost greater than or equal to 6 lines. The nine eyes with drusen with follow-up had no significant change in VA. Low foveal dark-adapted sensitivity, SLO measures of the scotoma within 1° of fixation, and low maximum reading rate were statistically significant risk factors for doubling of the visual angle. Significant reduction in maximum reading rates at 2 years was present for the eyes with GA.

Conclusions: The eyes with GA with good VA have profound decreases in visual function, particularly in dim lighting and in reading. Half the eyes with GA had doubling in visual angle at 2 years after the baseline examination, whereas the drusen eyes remained essentially unchanged. Impaired visual function at baseline was predictive of an adverse outcome for the eyes with GA.

The baseline visual function abnormalities were presented at the 1995 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The natural history aspect of this article is being submitted as an abstract for presentation at the 1997 American Academy of Ophthalmology Meeting, San Francisco, California.

Supported by NEI grants R01EY08552 (JS, CA, NB, BH, MM, DH) and RO1EY06380 (GR, JS).

The work with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope has been supported in part by the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Baltimore, Maryland; the Morris Rodman Philanthropic Foundation, Rockville, Maryland; the Altsheler-Durell Foundation, Louisville, Kentucky; the Grousbeck Family Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Macula Foundation, New York, New York.

The authors have no proprietary interest in the development or marketing of instruments used in this study or in competing instruments. Read More......

David Haselwood | Landmark-driven fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope

PURPOSE: To present a new method of performing scanning laser ophthalmoscope perimetry that compensates for eye movements so that the correct retinal location is tested even if fixation changes. This allows for accurate testing of patients with central scotomas and for repeating testing longitudinally at the same retinal locations even if central fixation is lost. METHODS: The operator views the retina and selects a retinal landmark, such as a vessel bifurcation, that can be identified easily. A testing strategy is preselected, and the computer saves the landmark and stimulus coordinates. To present each stimulus, the operator positions a cursor over the retinal landmark, and the computer adjusts the site of presentation of the stimulus for any change in landmark position caused by an eye movement. At the conclusion of the testing, the results are displayed in the proper retinal location on a fundus image. RESULTS: Sixty-seven eyes with macular disease were tested with the landmark-driven method, using the same preplanned strategy for each eye for both a bright and a dim stimulus. There was a low rate of inconsistent points (seen with dim but not bright stimuli), and virtually all of these bordered a dense scotoma. Those eyes with more inconsistent points had a significantly greater percentage of dense scotoma points and significantly lower visual acuity. The technique significantly corrected error in retinal localization resulting from large eye movement. There is no significant rotation or magnification change during the procedure, so specifying the change in location of one landmark is sufficient to describe movement of the retina. The technique is rapid and easy to administer to elderly patients and to children. CONCLUSIONS: This technique allows for accurate and repeatable measures of retinal sensitivity in specific locations. It is useful in following change over time. It can be developed further to allow for fully automated, retinally correct testing. Read More..........

David Haselwood | Future of the Hospital

David Haselwood | Healthcare and Medical - Prezi Template

David Haselwood | ECRI Institute Preps Hospital Leaders on Top 10 Technology Issues to Watch in 2017

PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Jan. 9, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The new and emerging healthcare innovations of 2017 come with a lot of promises. And, just like every other year, hospital leaders must remain vigilant about what to bring into their hospitals—and what to keep out. However, separating the facts from the hype isn't easily done alone.

ECRI Institute, an independent nonprofit that researches the best approaches to improving patient care, announces the release of its annual Top 10 Hospital C-suite Watch List to help hospital leaders make tough decisions about new and emerging technologies in 2017 and beyond.

Available as a free public service, the list gives hospital leaders evidence-based perspectives on new and emerging innovations that promise to deliver safe and cost-effective patient care. Each entry includes actionable recommendations in a quick-glance "What to Do" section.

"As new technologies come and go, ECRI remains steadfast in its mission to keep healthcare leaders' technology decisions tethered to their patients' needs while keeping an eye trained on evidence-based research," says Diane C. Robertson, director of Health Technology Assessment Information Service, ECRI Institute.

In its 2017 list, ECRI Institute examines 10 topics poised to affect care delivery over the next 12-18 months:

1. Liquid Biopsies: The New Wave of Genetic Testing?
2. Opioid Addiction: Can Technology Predict Risks of Addiction and Relapse?
3. The Belly of the Presurgery Beast: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes and Costs of Abdominal Surgery?
4. Right-sizing Your Hospital: Is It Time to Refresh Your Purchasing and Implementation Processes?
5. Seeing the Disinfecting Light: Will Compact Deep Ultraviolet-C LEDs Zap Disinfection Rates?
6. Pepper, the Emotional Robot: Do You Have a Spot for Artificial Intelligence on Your 2017 Payroll?
7. Robotic Surgery: Could a Pricey Patient-repositioning Table Improve Workflow and Outcomes?
8. Adjusting the Endoscopy Picture: Is a New Imaging Technique a Better Way to Visualize Tissue Malignancies?
9. Crohn's Disease: Will Immunotherapy and Stem Cell Therapy Rescue Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Symptoms?
10. Sticking It to Diabetes: Will Novel Vaccines Prevent or Cure Type I Diabetes in Children and Adults?

"Navigating new technologies is one of the biggest challenges we hear about from hospital leaders," says Robert P. Maliff, director of Applied Solutions Group, ECRI Institute. "They simply can't afford to miss the mark on which clinical advancements to bring in to improve patient care."

The watch list draws upon ECRI Institute's nearly 50 years of experience evaluating and providing technical assistance on the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. It reflects the unbiased, independent judgment of the Institute's multidisciplinary staff of clinical and technical researchers, engineers, risk management specialists, and healthcare planners and consultants.

ECRI Institute invites the press to learn more about the issues on this year's watch list by attending its media event, "Dismantling Device Dangers, Forecasting New Innovations," on Tuesday, January 31, at its headquarters in Plymouth Meeting, PA. Reporters will have the unique opportunity to interact with our health technology assessment, hospital consulting, patient safety, and medical device evaluation experts.

Professionals are also encouraged to join ECRI Institute's LinkedIn Group, "Emerging Healthcare Technologies in Patient Care," for further discussion of these topics.

 Read More........

David Haselwood | Rise of digital health technologies sparks urgent need for identity management, experts say

Consumers are becoming more concerned that the sharing of their personal and medical data by providers and other healthcare stakeholders will lead to security and privacy breaches, according to a recent study by Black Book Research.

Indeed, as electronic healthcare systems become more interoperable and as more digital patient information is collected and stored, the number of people and organizations trying to access this data – provider employees, colleagues, business partners, payers, pharmaceutical companies, and other healthcare stakeholders – has dramatically increased.

That reality has created an urgent need among healthcare providers for strong identity management.

“When we have users on our system, do we know if they’re the good guys or the bad guys?” asks Brian Decker, senior manager at Mayo Clinic and program manager for the clinic’s Identity Management Platform. “Who actually are users? Are they appropriate users? Who has access to what and why? Who’s accountable for our users’ access?”

The bottom line, Decker says, is “you’ve got to be sure the right people have the right access to the right things at the right time, and nothing else.”

What’s more, the emergence of digital technologies in healthcare, including electronic health records, revenue cycle management systems, connected health, cloud computing, and mobile devices and applications, necessitates a renewed focus on security, scalability, and improved experiences.

“Healthcare has gotten very complex, with lots of regulations and lots of changes,” said Munawwar Khan, senior principal healthcare consultant at Mayo Clinic. “As a result, not all vendor systems do everything, so health organizations have to purchase different apps or create their own.”

When that happens, Khan added, it can create a “black hole” within the organization that could lead to security vulnerabilities.

To avoid that black hole, Decker and Khan recommend identifying and implementing practical solutions for establishing an identity management program, instituting appropriate governance and creating organizational change management and communications challenges within the identity management operational infrastructure.  Read More.......

David Haselwood | 10 health IT conferences you shouldn’t miss in 2017

From 3D printing to digital records, technology has changed the healthcare industry. If you want to keep up to date on the latest emerging trends in healthcare, there is no shortage of events that will keep you in the loop. Here are 10 health IT conferences you can't miss whether you're a doctor, nurse, health IT pro or C-Level executive.

SX Health & MedTEch Expo

Part of the popular annual SXSW festival, the SX Health & MedTech Expo focuses on latest technologies in healthcare. Covering everything from startups to large corporations, this conference offers the latest innovations and emerging trends in healthcare. While this year's speakers haven't been announced yet, past years have included Bakul Patel, associate center director for digital health at the FDA, and Stanford and Harvard trained physician-scientist, inventor and entrepreneur, Daniel Kraft from Singularity University.

The SX Health and MedTech Expo takes place during the SXSW festival between March 10 and 18 in Austin, Texas, and registration fees vary depending on what level badge you purchase.

TEDMED

Affiliated with the popular TED conference, best-known for its Ted Talks, TedMed operates under a similar format with a focus on healthcare innovation. The conference promises to bridge "the gap between science and the public," through shared stories that help "inform, inspire, engage and provoke action."

This year's TedMed conference takes place in Palm Springs, California, from November 1 to 3, and registration costs $3,450. However, if you register before January 15, you will receive $1,500 off the cost of the registration process.

iHealth 2017 Clinical Informatics Conference

The iHealth Clinical Informatics Conference, held by the AMIA, is targeted at clinicians and informatics professionals, with a focus on innovations with health data and mobile health initiatives. The iHealth 2017 Clinical Informatics Conference takes place in Philadelphia, from May 2 to 4 at the Lowes Philadelphia Hotel. Registration is currently open, and starts at $430 for students, $745 for members and $1,120 for nonmembers; rates go up if you register after March 15.

HIMSS Conference

Targeted at health IT professionals, executives, vendors and clinicians, the HIMSS17 conference promises to offer educational programs, keynote speakers, thought leader discussions, workshops and networking opportunities. This year's keynote speakers include Ginni M. Rometty, chairman, president and CEO of IBM as well as former speaker, John Boehner.

The 2017 HIMSS Annual Conference and Exhibition takes place in Orlando, Florida, in the Orange County Convention Center February 19-23.

Health 2.0

Health 2.0 conferences, areaimed at everyone from digital innovators to nurses to CIOs. These conferences focus on innovation, networking, emerging trends and you'll find no shortage of impressive keynote speakers at any event. You can find conferences in San Francisco and Santa Clara, California; Barcelona, Spain and Hyderabad, India. Dates and registration fees vary depending on the conference you choose. Unlike other annual conferences, you don't have to worry if you can't make one Health 2.0 event, because it's likely there is another just around the corner.

Connected Health Conference

Formerly the mHealth Summit, the Connected Health Conference heavily focuses on the digital aspect of healthcare and facilitating healthcare access around the globe. While the 2017 conference hasn't been announced just yet, last year's conference included the chief health officer at IBM, Kyu Rhee, and the vice president of digital health at Fitbit, Adam Pellegrini.

This year's Connected Health Conference doesn't have a date yet, but the last conference took place during December in Washington, D.C. The cost of registration will vary depending on how many sessions you choose to go to, how early you register and how many ad-on sessions you opt for. Read More......

David Haselwood | 2017: The Year Ahead in Healthcare Information Technology

Cybersecurity, analytics and population health have the attention and dollars of healthcare organizations, which also are beginning to invest in prescriptive analytics and artificial intelligence, a new Healthcare IT News survey finds.

The need for greater cybersecurity protection is sinking in. The desire to better understand mountains of untapped data is on the rise. And the necessity to start improving the health not just of patients but of whole populations is being taken quite seriously.

These are some of the conclusions from “2017: The Year Ahead in Health IT,” a new survey of healthcare organizations from Healthcare IT News. We polled 95 healthcare executives in October 2016.

Asked which technologies they are planning to upgrade in 2017, 52 percent of survey respondents said security, 51 percent analytics, 44 percent patient engagement, 44 percent population health, 31 percent EHRs, 24 percent remote patient monitoring, and 22 percent revenue cycle management.

Joe Fisne, associate chief information officer at Geisinger Health System, observed that this spread makes sense.

“From the standpoint of security being No. 1, it certainly is one of the most critical things in healthcare today,” Fisne said. “We are in an age where technology has extended so far into the realm of healthcare that it has become one of the most critical things, so the heightened need for security follows. And analytics is key, as well. We are investing in some of the Big Data platforms to take information and demonstrate trends, practices and patterns of care, as well as patterns of illness along the way. And that goes hand in hand with population health.”

2017 also will see the arrival of technologies at many healthcare organizations. Asked which technologies they plan to introduce or investigate in 2017, 45 percent of survey respondents said analytics, 45 percent workflow improvement, 44 percent telehealth, 41 percent population health, 41 percent smart medical devices, 34 percent remote patient monitoring, and 21 percent precision medicine.

“What stands out here is the increasing importance of telehealth as a different form of access as well as a different form of connecting with consumers,” said Brian Kalis, managing director of the health practice at research and consulting firm Accenture. “Seeing telehealth with increased importance can help address labor productivity challenges in healthcare.”

Though lower in the survey results, Kalis said he finds the interest in precision medicine quite promising.

“This foreshadows what we might see accelerate in 2017 – the focus on precision medicine and the initial investments in using precision medicine to improve care,” he said. “This is an early stage trend. As well as the survey respondents’ fairly high prioritization of smart medical devices; we’ve heard from a number of health systems looking at new strategies to use patient-generated health data to improve care.”

2017 will be no different than years past with healthcare organizations will be working on their electronic health records. But the priorities for 2017 are unique to the time. Asked which types of EHR development projects are or will be in the works within their enterprises in 2017, 60 percent of survey respondents said improving interoperability, 55 percent improving workflow, 47 percent improving usability, 37 percent adding population health tools to the EHR, 28 percent migrating to the cloud, 24 percent performing a major EHR system upgrade, and 21 percent replacing the EHR at one or more sites.

All of this adds up to a very natural evolution based on the healthcare landscape today, said John Halamka, MD, CIO at Beth Israel Deaconess System and a professor of medicine at Harvard University.

“When you look at the quality programs and MIPS and MACRA, suddenly you are seeing a realignment of incentives where doctors are paid for wellness and quality as opposed to quantity,” he said. “Unless you are collecting data about patients across the population, it’s really hard to control expenses, enhance quality and improve workflow. EHRs were put in basically as dumb data communication systems without emphasis on exchange and workflow. But because of payment reform, we have incentives to do data exchange. Different things are bubbling to the top.”

One aspect of EHRs many healthcare organizations continue to work on is caregiver acceptance. Asked what actions will they take in 2017 to get more physicians and nurses to fully embrace EHR technology, 60 percent of survey respondents said integrate EHRs with other technologies that, for example, advance population health or best practices, 47 percent improve EHR system interfaces, 40 percent clearly show EHRs help the organization profitably manage value-based care, and 38 percent clearly show how the technology markedly reduces time spent on tasks outside of direct patient interaction.

The “2017: The Year Ahead in Health IT” survey found population health to be a high priority with a great many healthcare organizations. Asked if their organization plans to implement a population health system in 2017, 20 percent of survey respondents said yes, they are planning to deploy a new system, a big 42 percent said yes, they will be adding tools to existing systems, 9 percent said no, they have finished their population health project, and a significant 29 percent said no, population health is not in their plans for 2017. Read More......