Remote Scanning's 'Customer Problem'
Tobias Gilk
Architect and ?? Radiology / MRI Safety ?? Expert. Expert Witness. Speaker. MRI safety trainer and consultant for ?? healthcare providers and industry.
There is an MRI technologist / radiographer shortfall and the biggest equipment vendors are all here to help with remote scanning tools... so why isn't this 'workforce multiplier' actually multiplying workforce?
Not enough sites are using these tools.
'Well that makes no sense! If there's a known problem, and an available tool to solve that problem, why aren't people using the available tool?'
Well, it is not because the tools don't work. Most of the MRI original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have software products that do, indeed, allow remote operation... seamlessly from a technological standpoint. (That qualifier, "technological," will become very important as you'll see in a minute.)
The problem isn't that the tools don't work... the problem is that there is no 'how to' map to adopt the use of the tools. Imagine you had been using an old-timey bit-and-brace manual drill for the past 40 years...
... Now imagine that someone gave you a cordless electric drill...
They tell you that this could turn out to be one of the greatest labor-multipliers you've ever seen when it comes to drilling holes!
But what if you didn't have electricity, or understand how to insert or remove the battery packs? What if you didn't know what the charger base (to recharge the batteries) was or how it was important to the drill? What if you were unaware of the massive increase in torque that might come from an electric drill, and the changes in the way that the device needed to be operated to keep the operators from breaking their wrists?
In so many respects the cordless electric drill is superior to the bit-and-brace manual drill, but if you just dropped this into the lap of someone in 1900 they wouldn't have the first clue what to make of it. This is where we are with remote scanning tools for MRI.
I've spoken with product specialists for the remote tools from a couple of the major OEMs, and I get the sense that there's some confusion and frustration as to why customers aren't buying their 'cordless electric drills'... and what could they do to make their cordless electric drills more appealing.
The problem isn't the product... the problem is the market.
领英推荐
The customers want (and in some cases, need) the benefits offered by these newfangled 'cordless electric drills,' but they don't know how to transition from the bit-and-brace that has been the only form of drill they've ever known.
Today, many MRI providers desperately need labor force multipliers, and the OEMs are keenly aware of this need and are aggressively marketing remote-scanning tools and technologies as a solution to that problem. But remote-scanning has several other benefits besides full-remote-scanning, from the technical (remote protocol optimization / standardization), training or competency asessment (looking over the shoulder of an inexperienced tech), to the 'expert' model (e.g., having a cardiac specialist remote-in to execute a single challenging scan and then returning operation to the regular tech). While remote-scanning is being marketed as a tool to multiply technologist workforce, the only implementations that have clear paths to adoption are the ones that don't actually do that (technical, training, and expert uses).
This is borne out by looking at who the sites are who have actually embraced full-remote-scanning in the United States at any appreciable scale... these tend to be large enterprise clients.
When you're working internally within a large organization, all of the sticky legal and liability questions about remote operation (that exist because of a lack of industry standards) are greatly diminished because the single organization maintains control over the site, the point-of-care, the remote-operator, the supervising physicians, and all of the technology that interconnects the various players. This limited and specific customer type is able to circumvent the fact that the legal and liability landscape is terribly ambiguous, and is also able to dedicate the resources to 'reinvent the wheel' to establish new operational models for themselves. So I've seen remote operation being deployed within large hospital groups, and large outpatient imaging organizations, using internal staffing.
If you're not a large enterprise, or if you don't have sufficient internal staff to re-allocate with remote scanning tools, or you don't have the resources to develop -from scratch- the training / practice / workflow structures that are necessary to implement these tools, or you're uncomfortable with the practice and liability questions that remain unanswered, then all the product features of remote scanning are completely useless to you.
The promises of how remote-scanning will benefit unaffiliated smaller hospitals, critical access hospitals, and independent outpatient imaging facilities is, for the moment at least, a complete pipe-dream and unsupportable marketing hype.
The OEMs continue marketing these products based on providers' clamoring need for workforce multipliers for MRI techs, but they've not developed tools of adoption and implementation for their customers. Instead they're doing the equivalent of touting the 'foot-pounds of torque' or 'hours of battery-life' of their cordless electric drill to customers who've never seen a battery charger before. OEMs are marketing based on customer needs with a product that is a quantum leap from what they've been using, without adoption or transition tools.
I suppose it's not surprising that companies that make products look, first, at how to make their products better when confronted with disappointing sales and adoption, but this is not a product problem... this is a problem with the market. If OEMs were serious about providing their customers with solutions to their workforce problems, they should be focusing on reshaping the market, not their products.
The 'good news' / 'bad news' for OEMs is this... your products are GREAT, but you're never going to see the sales / adoption that you're expecting if you don't switch your focus away from your products and towards the needs of the market.
Today I see a very bifurcated market, with adoption of remote scanning largely from either large ivory-tower institutions or large IDTF profiteers. If OEMs want these products to be appealing to the middle-majority of prospective customers, including smaller organizations, and to do what they market remote scanning products as doing, they're going to need to shift their focus towards the market.
Accomplished Healthcare Operations Administrator | Expert in Team Collaboration & Patient Care Optimization | Champion of Fiscal Responsibility | Strategic Project Management Leader
8 个月Fascinating topic, thank you for sharing and showing this perspective.
MRI Radiographer/Mammographer/Oncology Imaging/Education (Former Lecturer at Robert Gordon University)
8 个月As an MRI radiographer, I'm fascinated by the topic of remote scanning. From a British perspective, the integration of fully remote scanning presents a variety of safety and ethical issues, that from a legal and regulatory standpoint, can't be dismissed without evidence on which to base accurate risk assessments. To comply with legal obligations and maintain due standards at the point of care, I do believe that at least one category A authorised person must be physically present throughout the entirity of the examination. For many, there simply isn't level of shortfall in the workforce that would warrant taking on the potential risks and costs associated with deployment of this technology in favour of investment in people, education, training, continued professional development, and the economy. Although like telereporting or AI for image classification/analysis, with further market development, the integration of regulated remote MRI presents exciting possibilities for consistently understaffed remote and rural sites. But as the implementation of any new technology or way or working must be evidence-based, tech companies need to work in partnership with staff and services to validate, risk assess, and integrate their products.
Architect and ?? Radiology / MRI Safety ?? Expert. Expert Witness. Speaker. MRI safety trainer and consultant for ?? healthcare providers and industry.
8 个月If you’ve not seen Lukas Waeschle’s response to this article, and the comments there, you should check it out! https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/lukas-waeschle-048bb075_a-reply-to-tobi-gilks-remote-scanning-activity-7172545796326809600-tnEx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
Right, have now read this Tobias, and I cannot disagree with your points. I am also writing this in response to Lukas Waeschle reply to your post, so will post the same response on his. Firstly, Lukas..having read Tobias' post, I'm certain that there was no intent to insult you or your team..indeed, there was no insult at all; Tobias simply noted his observations, concerns and ideas, & it does not seem like you are too far apart. Your point about topics that scare off legal, quality, etc depts is valid, but I suspect your customers want to know what these depts have done about it i.e. have they drafted guidance, interacted with the relevant regulatory authorities & your team, etc...& most importantly, passed this on to their potential clients? I agree with Tobias about focusing on the market - not just the big fish, but the smaller ones too...& I'll give you a perfect personal worldly example. I contacted a few of the bigger OEMs using their online contact forms made specifically for this, but only had a response from one- & this is probably because I spoke to them at a Radiology conference. I even outlined my plan for the use of this technological advancement, but did NOT get a response from the others & ..continued below...
I hadn't seen this Tobias..excellent. I've only seen this because I read a response to it....you make some good and valid points ....I better read the response again before commenting substantively