The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the sixth and final in a series of posts from the conference.

It’s now been a month since Forum 2009, so it’s time to wrap up any remaining thoughts from the meeting. My intention with these posts was never to provide a comprehensive view of the conference. If you’re looking for that, or simply additional insights into the meeting, I recommend the following resources:

1. Priya Shetty’s coverage of Forum 2009 for the SciDev.Net blog, five posts
2. TropIKA.net comprehensive coverage of Forum 2009, including daily reports and session reports

On my Cancún-bound flight out of Havana, on the morning of the 20th, the woman sitting next to me asked me for help with her Mexican immigration forms. As I was helping her, I asked what she did. “Terapista”. She asked what I was doing in Cuba. Attending “un congreso de investigaciones de salud pública”. She was a Cuban physical therapist going on a three month medical mission to Tecate in the Mexican state of Baja California, via Cancún, Mexico City, and Tijuana. I spent most of the short flight asking about her experiences on previous missions, all to Mexico, and probing for more details about the Cuban health system. Most memorably, she was quite proud of a unique surgical treatment the Cubans have developed for Parkinson’s disease.

I spoke about the medical assistance Cuba lends to other countries in an earlier post. The photo below of the 20 convertible peso note reinforces this. It touts Operación Milagro (Wikipedia link in Spanish), a joint program between Cuba and Venezuela with official aims similar to Cuba’s other medical mission efforts.

While I was speaking to this terapista on the plane, it occurred to me how important the setting of the conference was given the innovation theme. I don’t think that this was lost on many of the conference participants given external interest in the Cuban system, Cuban participation on panels, and various site visits. Still, there were three circumstances that limited knowledge exchange between the visitors and the Cubans:

1. Language barriers. There wasn’t very much communication between the several hundred Cuban participants and the external participants, especially those from outside Latin America. This was due in no small part to language barriers. Simultaneous translation took place during the larger sessions (UN-style headsets), but the smaller sessions didn’t have any and the informal exchange was visibly limited between the two groups.
2. An apparently flawless system. The Cuban health system may have been the talk of the week, but it was presented without fault. Even though it may be one of the best systems on the planet, it is not immune to needing improvement. Without a realistic understanding of the challenges, it was hard to understand the true effectiveness of the system. (In comparison, Minister of Health Chen Zhu was frank in talking about elements of the Chinese health system that need improvement, for example indicating in his plenary talk that many public clinics in China operate like private clinics.)
3. No U.S. government employees in attendance. There were certainly Americans at Forum 2009, but because of the restrictions associated with the U.S. embargo – it’s a bloqueo the Cubans said, since an embargo implies wrongdoing – there were almost no representatives of U.S. government institutions. I didn’t realize this myself until a colleague from the WHO pointed it out to me. He cited the example of his colleagues from the CDC who were not permitted to attend. Looking through the participant list, I only spotted one, someone from USAID. It’s unfortunate because there was a big opportunity for learning in both directions. In any case there were strong suggestions that we are months away from ending the embargo/bloqueo. Time will tell.

And here’s a post Aman wrote for Global Health Ideas about the Cuban health system two years ago: Lessons from Cuba: Healthcare Infrastructure and Information Systems.

The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the fifth in a series of posts from the conference. Only one or two more after this one.

My reason for attending Forum 2009 was to participate in a session title “Innovation for Remote Populations”. This post is a about that session. What follows is taken from my recent report to the Global Forum for Health Research – edited only slightly.

Innovation for Remote Populations

Thurs-19-Nov-2009, 14:00-15:45, Global Café, Palacio de Convenciones, La Habana, Cuba

Coordinators/Facilitators:

• Patricia Mechael, mHealth and Telemedicine Advisor, Millennium Villages Project, Earth Institute, Columbia University, USA & Egypt (organizer & facilitator)
• Tim Hurson, Facilitators Without Borders (facilitator)
• Charles Gardner, Global Forum for Health Research (focal point)

Speakers (alphabetical order):

• Simon Adebola, NEPAD Council Global Health Commission, Geneva
• Najeeb al-Shorbaji, Director, Knowledge Management and Sharing, WHO
• Caren Serra Bavaresco, Student, Epidemiology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Karl Brown, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation
• Arul Chib, Assistant Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication, and Assistant Director, Singapore Internet Research Center, Nanyang Technological University
• Dziedzom Komi de Souza, Ph.D. Student and Research Assistant, Parasitology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Ghana
• Bastiaan Hoefman, co-Founder, Text2Change
• Bernardita Labarca, Project Coordinator, Zoltner Consulting Group, Chile
• Claire O’Neill, Chairperson, Cell-Life-South Africa
• Ravi Ram, Head, Monitoring & Evaluation, African Medical Research and Research Foundation (AMREF), Nairobi Kenya
• Marco Salmen, OHR-GMCP Initiative for HIV/AIDS, Global Micro-Clinic Project, United States
• Jaspal S. Sandhu, Design Researcher, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA
• Joel Selanikio, co-Founder and Director, Datadyne.org, USA
• Garance Upham, General Secretary, Direction, Safe Observer International, France

Additional participants – from the audience:

• Elmer Zelaya – Fundación Chica/Nicaragua
• Timothy Dye – SUNY Upstate Medical School/USA
• Jane Kengeya – WHO
• Oyewale Tomori – Redeemer’s University/Nigeria
• Lishandu/Zambia (full name/affiliation not available)
• Vargas/USA (full name/affiliation not available)

Summary:

1. Diverse users and uses: The speakers presented a variety of mHealth/eHealth applications involving a wide variety of users, including both the health workforce and community members, e.g. educating teenagers about HIV/AIDS in South Africa (O’Neill), Internet access in western Kenya to improve uptake of HIV VCT (Salmen), mobile emergency response systems in Aceh (Chib), electronic IMCI in Tanzania (Brown), text-based health education and health service promotion in Uganda (Hoefman), training for health workers as a downloadable game package for phones in Kenya (Ram), telemedicine to improve the skills of health workers at primary levels in Brazil (Bavaresco), delivery of health information to communities in Chile (Labarca), a general set of tools for mobile data collection being used worldwide (Selanikio), and handheld computers to support rural healthcare delivery in Mongolia (Sandhu).
2. mHealth/eHealth is about enabling access: A common theme across diverse applications was that information and communication technologies are being used to enable access to health information and services in places where access is difficult because of remoteness and/or cost.
3. Coordination among the various players: Coordination among donors and projects is necessary to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to share what works. This is the role of the mHealth Alliance, supported by Rockefeller Foundation among others (Brown). While there were questions from the program side as to what data donors want (Chib), there was a simultaneous sentiment that donors need “stepwise” guidance (al-Shorbaji).
4. De-emphasizing technology: The mHealth Alliance has recently been discussing development of an “mHealth Toolkit”, to provide a common technical architecture and platform for those planning to implement mHealth programs (Brown). The existence of free technology platforms – in this case DataDyne’s tool – enables programs to focus on developing health content (Labarca). It is important to have a generalizable tool, as DataDyne has done, that can be used by anyone; if individual governments must approve technology “you’ve lost the battle” (Selanikio). Programs must focus on understanding people and applications more than technology; in response to a question from Dye about the use of ethnography in this field, three examples were given: ethnography of teen chat rooms in South Africa (O’Neill), multi-year ethnographic fieldwork as the basis for the program in western Kenya (Salmen), and design ethnography of the information management practices of rural health workers in Mongolia (Sandhu).
5. Defining good evaluation: There are challenges to seeing change in population health outcomes (Chib). It is difficult to measure behavior change (Hoefman) and to evaluate systems that provide health content to people (Labarca). Ethnography should be considered more seriously as a complementary evaluation strategy in mHealth (Sandhu). In evaluation, the metrics should match the intervention – mHealth is another intervention; in addition, we want to see the unintended effects of technology (Ram).
6. New modalities of engaging people: Mobile phones enable fundamentally new ways of engaging with people. As opposed to mass communication that is often used in social marketing, phones allow for interpersonal communication that can be tailored and cost-effective (O’Neill). There are two modalities, moving messages out to people and demand-driven services, where people demand the information that they need (Ram). Salmen lent his support to the importance of demand-driven services and argued that phones will bring more equity. This is all supporting the shift to citizen-centered healthcare (Mechael).
7. Cautions moving forward: In natural disasters, the cellular network is the first to go (Zelaya). An open question: Who owns the data? (al-Shorbaji). Nobody is thinking about “real sustainability” (Adebola). Reliable phone networks are a challenge (Lishandu). We should be careful that we don’t become too dependent on one tool (al-Shorbaji).
8. Need to think more creatively: We should be bolder with approaches; if we are, poor countries “could leapfrog” in health and development terms (Upham). Many of the applications discussed focused on SMS and telephony capabilities; we should think about leveraging more advanced capabilities of mobile phones (Kengeya).
9. Who should design technology? There is an assumption that Africans cannot develop software, but that is not true (Adebola). DataDyne software was already developed by Africans (Selanikio). Africans should develop software, but they shouldn’t redesign what has already been built (Brown).

Conclusions/Recommendations:

1. There is a need for increased knowledge-sharing about mHealth/eHealth within the global health community. This should definitely include policymakers. As Prof. Tomori elegantly stated, while we are thinking about how to reach remote populations, we should think about “hard-to-reach” African leaders.
2. While there was discussion of both eHealth and mHealth, the discussion focused primarily on the latter.
3. There is a need for a continuing dialogue about mHealth. It is unrealistic to expect policy recommendations to come out of this meeting given the state of the field (many open issues) and the limited engagement at the meeting.
4. Major mHealth topics to be discussed at future meetings: definitions; standards, including how to conduct evaluation; and successes and failures from the field.
5. The value of the meeting was threefold: (1) it helped extend the network of those working in mHealth; (2) it provided those outside the field with an understanding of the opportunities and challenges of using mobile phones to improve population health; and (3) it placed a much-needed emphasis on prioritizing people and applications over technology.
6. Mechael suggested reviving the Mobile Metrics and Evaluation Group as a means of maintaining an active mHealth community discussion outside of official meetings.

Other observations:

1. The fishbowl format was successful in eliciting relevant commentary from a large group of speakers as well as from the audience. Time was an issue, though, as several invited speakers only spoke once and several audience members had comments or questions that they were unable to share.
2. One key issue that was not explored – as I stated at the end of the session – was the link between social entrepreneurship and mHealth. This is especially relevant to issues of demand, incentivization, and sustainability.
3. There is a need for an ongoing discussion of these issues at Forum 2010 and beyond – while the conversation will continue in other settings, the Global Forum for Health Research should continue to be involved because of its systems focus, its emphasis on actionable research, and the unique mix of parties (policymakers, donors, implementers) it brings together.

Nota bene: These are a few highlights from CGI – please do add your inspirations/ideas in the comments!

Clinton Global Initiative – Making things happen through Commitments

Action speaks louder than words. At CGI, you’ve got to commit – and that has an amazing impact.

What will your commitment be?

CGI was the birthplace, in past years, of projects like Matt Damon’s water program (water.org, expanding this year to Haiti), the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative, and so many more. In the five years of CGI, there have been 1,400 commitments made (participants are required to make commitments to existing projects or commit to creating new projects), valued at $46 billion dollars, and impacting the lives of 200 million people in 150 countries. This year’s meeting will give birth to 30 more of these programs – more by Andrew Mersman over at Passport Magazine/ Change by Doing blog.

Check out CGI Commitments here.

Innovation!

Business Week highlighted innovation as a top priority for the global economy, and President Obama announced a new strategy for innovation: A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs. Download white paper.

Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation identified innovation strategies that could be applied to social problems – user-driven innovation, crowd sourcing and collaborative competitions reported here by Alexandra Cheney at Fast Company.  And Innovate Today: 8 Ways Business can End Poverty - superb post by Steve Enders over at tonic.

A few people – including Muhammed Yunus and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of the World Bank at CGI had an Innovation Wish List. Yunus talked about the edible yogurt pot, and Judith Rodin announced a new initiative to help the poor – the Global Impact Investing Network. This gets my vote for one of the most exciting developments to come out of CGI – read the Economist article.

Investing in Women and Girls

Women make up half of the world’s population, but do 2/3 of the world’s work, produce 50% world’s food, earn 10% world’s income, own 1% of world’s property.

Read the rest of this entry »

This year’s Clinton Global Initiative takes place from 22 – 25 September 2009, where heads of state, government and business leaders, scholars, and NGO directors work together to analyze, discuss, and debate possible solutions to urgent global issues. Each participant is then asked to take action on one or more issues by making a Commitment to Action.

The Economist calls the meeting ‘an important part of the global elite’s calendar’, so join online and watch the live webcast!

As noted in our post on Girls Count: The Girl Effect, one of the major themes this year is Investing in Girls and Women. The four focus areas are Innovation, Human Capital, Infrastructure, and Equitable Futures.

Read the rest of this entry »

Image courtesy of kiwanja.net

Late last week I read news from three different sectors, all about “South-North” innovation transfer, a topic we’ve discussed here before, particularly in the context of mHealth. Earlier this year Fast Company reported on the concept of trickle-up innovation, citing the examples of yogurt microplants in Bangladesh (Group Danone, Grameen Bank) and Mosoko, touted as Craigslist for the next billion in Kenya (Nokia). In addition to these cases of MNCs from the global North testing out concepts in the South, Fast Company presented examples of corporations from the South, including ICICI (banking, India), Natura (cosmetics, Brazil), and Goodbaby (infant products, China).

Here are the three articles from this past week:

1. HEALTH SERVICES: To Fix Health Care, Some Study Developing World, Wall Street Journal, 2 Jul 2009. The University of Alabama-Birmingham AIDS clinic turned to Zambia for a model of increasing the number of patients who showed up for treatment. Based on early successes, they are continuing under the project name “Zambama”.
2. FINANCIAL SERVICES: DOCOMO to Launch Mobile Remittance Service, NTT DOCOMO press release, 2 Jul 2009. Later this month Japan’s DOCOMO will enable individual subscribers to use their mobile phone to remit money to other subscribers. Such a branchless banking/financial remittance service is certainly prompted by Safaricom’s M-PESA service from Kenya.
3. CLEAN TECH: Worldchanging Interview: Shawn Frayne, 2 Jul 2009. The interview is about wind technology, but touches on broader issues related to South-North innovation flow. Frayne thinks that “the constraints of the developing world can provide the necessary inspiration to make significant technological leaps that can benefit the Global South and Global North simultaneously”.

There are various other examples from the last several years suggesting a growing trend in countries from the North learning from the South. Here are examples just around financial services for the poor:

• Opportunity NYC was the first conditional cash transfer (CCT) program in the U.S., based on the Oportunidades program developed in Mexico.
• Less than one month ago international development micro-lender Kiva launched a pilot program in the U.S.
• Grameen Bank supports microcredit in places like Norway

Add to that the various management principles we’ve learned from the Aravind Eye Care System and Mumbai’s dabbawallas. Extending the argument presented by Fast Company, these examples show that South-North innovation transfer doesn’t have to be focused on corporations.

While it’s enticing to think about mining untapped innovation potential in the South for the benefit of the North, the real potential is much broader. Innovation can (and does) flow in all directions, not just South-North, but also North-South, South-South, and within countries. The challenge is to learn from different ways of approaching the same problem. Or even similar problems: see how Kaiser-Permanente visited a flight school to reduce medication errors and how the NHS worked with Formula 1 team to improve ICU procedures.

Given this potential, the big, open question is this… How do we increase global sharing of ideas and models to spur innovation?

As with the last post, I’m copying the description of the session I just attended – Vouchers for Health (Session C3) - from the conference website:

Presenters Discuss: the potential of competitive vouchers in increasing access to priority services for currently underserved populations (Nicaragua); how subsidized, targeted vouchers can achieve the goal of improving health of poor women and children, elements that improve access to high quality health care services, how targeted voucher subsidies help meet the goal of contributing to development of a national social health insurance system that is accessible, affordable and acceptable (Kenya); a nationwide, high transaction distribution project for insecticide treated nets (ITNs) that has given rise to the application of technologies in the use of a relational database as a means to track each voucher transaction, ensuring security and traceability, providing spatial analysis using GPS coordinates, leveraging data from this project to others by providing a central data repository to government, and exploring SMS and mobile phones for automating voucher transactions and gathering patient information (Tanzania); and how poor pregnant women were selected for vouchers jointly by field workers and community support group members, how the institutionalization process for the voucher scheme was implemented, and how the health facilities were strengthened to provide quality maternal health care (Bangladesh).

Why should we care about voucher schemes? Three reasons from where I sit. These schemes provide:

1. An attractive model for extending the reach of services without significant infrastructural investment
2. Incentives for competition to improve the quality of service delivery
3. A mechanism for reducing financial barriers for the poor

Despite this promise, my experience over the last few years – including stumbling through a poster presentation about vouchers in Uganda for Ben at APHA in Boston a couple years back – has taught me that the concept tends to be elusive to “outsiders”. The World Bank’s Private Sector Development Blog has a concise overview of output-based aid for those that aren’t familiar. I won’t try to explain myself, since I’ll probably make some errors.

This session brought together diversity in geography – the talks covered Latin America, Africa, and Asia - and in services – anti-malarial bednets, safe motherhood, family planning, STI prevention and treatment. What was most interesting to me then was not the details of any specific program, but what we might be able to learn from having these different experts in the same room.

So what were the common themes?

1. Vouchers work. Nicaragua saw increases in service utilization, condom utilization, family planning uptake, and KAP. Much of this across different subgroup analyses – age, level of sexual activity, type of residence. The others similarly all saw positive gains in what they were trying to achieve.
2. Institutions matter. In Tanzania, the market is being flooded with free ITNs (possibly LLINs) under a new policy to achieve universal coverage – the fate of the 7000 bednet retailers under the Tanzania National Voucher Scheme (TNVS) is unknown. In Kenya, Nairobi and Kiambu saw better results for the voucher scheme because of existing infrastructure. Nairobi actually had provided more voucher-based services than vouchers sold in Nairobi because of women coming in from outlying areas. Tanzania benefits from a manufacturing base that can produce ITNs and a system that encourages people to pay for a portion of their health care.
3. The system will be gamed. The much higher reimbursement for providers of C-sections than vaginal deliveries has led in some cases to higher rates of C-sections than is necessary. April Harding who was moderating said that multiple schemes have been used/proposed for dealing with this, including capitation (e.g. for 100 women, X% will be reimbursed for C-sections). Fraud is also a problem. While nobody discussed incidences of counterfeiting, the Tanzania program has taken big steps to prevent counterfeiting, including watermarks, microprinting, and a bar code. The bigger issue with fraud is related to ineligible participants obtaining and using vouchers intended for other populations, whether by income or geography. Which leads us to the next point…
4. Equitable distribution is hard. Ineligible participants seem to be a problem with all these programs. In Bangladesh they responded by bypassing governmental decisions about who would get vouchers and relied on CSGs (community support groups) to make the decisions. Another trend is that those who are more poor tend to utilize vouchers less – it is unclear if this due to cost, education, and interaction among the two, or something we’re not thinking about.
5. Understanding redemption is complicated. This was my one question. In both Tanzania and Kenya – the others didn’t present these numbers or I didn’t catch them - the rate of redemption (number of people receiving services under the voucher scheme divided by the total number of vouchers distributed) – was around 80%. After I asked the question and before the panelists responded, my neighbors said that: (1) 80% is pretty good, and (2) the Tanzanians unlike the Kenyans don’t pay for their vouchers until they use them. In Tanzania then, the reasons are grounded speculations: perceived value of the ITNs, access, cost. In Kenya, the majority of the outstanding 20% is due to accounting. The real utilization is expected to be much higher since the cutoff for the evaluation excluded women who had received vouchers, but had not yet delivered (safe motherhood program). Still a minor portion of this is due to women who are unable to deliver at contracted facilities due to a lack of transportation or the timing of the pregnancy.

Just attended session B6 “Not the Usual Suspects: Community Based Low Tech Interventions that Improve Child Health Outcomes”. Copying the description and presenter info from the conference website here:

Presenters Discuss: the value of pictorial representation of integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) algorithms and child care best practices for the quality of care of illiterate community health workers (CHWs) (Afghanistan); steps to engage religious leaders in health promotion, capitalizing on traditional vehicles to provide funds to increase health-seeking behaviors, and building an effective rotating drug program (Ethiopia); the role of computer based tools for microplanning in routine immunization and the planning process using the tool (Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh, India); and how introducing new medicines in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) catalyzed policy changes and drove interventions to strengthen pharmaceutical management systems (Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania). 

First a quick recap of the presenters and what they talked about – and then what was most interesting.

One theme that weaved through the first three talks – and one of the most important – was that the success of “low-tech” technology in improving child health depended on an improved understanding of the people that use the technology.

From the first talk (Aitken, Afghanistan): The approach relied on a different type of literacy – a specific symbolic literacy making use of fingers and moons for time, and drawn images of children and mothers. During the formative research, the CHWs asked, in reference to a diagram showing a child being held by her mother, “Where’s the rest of the mother?” The next revision of the C-IMCI materials showed the entire mother, not just a cropping suggesting a mother. There’s a very strong analog to the Pull-Ups diaper case from the consumer packaged goods industry in the United States. First-hand design research with Huggies in the late 1980s showed the difference in perspectives between those producing diapers – exemplified by physical model of a baby without head, arms, or legs – and parents – who were concerned not with sanitation, but childhood development. [on short time now because of the conference - can provide reference later] 

From the second talk (Roy, Ethiopia): Working together with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, CARE has been engaged in a comprehensive community-based program to improve child health in Ethiopia. The EOC priest delivers health messages after Sunday sermon, on significant holidays, and to 20-40 families that he routinely visits as a “confessor”. Within this framework there are a number of innovations that they have developed tailored to this specific program. The booklet that contains health information is a pamphlet in the same form factor as bibles that the priests carry with them (building trust). Yellow “referral tokens” allow the priest on his household visits to refer a sick child to a local clinic (utilizing non-health professionals for services). They also have a “data board” which publicly displays mortality and morbidity statistics (community information sharing) – it’s a chalkboard much like the community board from Ghana that was making the rounds recently. [can't remember where I saw this, but will add the link if I remember, or if someone reminds me] Finally, the program is extending the traditional economic practice of idir (a traditional membership-based funeral insurance scheme with democratically-elected leadership) to childhood health emergencies.

From the third talk (Sagar, India): The Microsoft Excel-based computer microplanning tool had unexpected positive consequences for those using it at district and sub-district levels. Where no microplanning had been present before, these small health organizations in Jharkand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have started to incorporate microplanning into routine activities. Technology for positive organizational change. And the innovation is diffusing organically – the speaker said he received word today that Bihar is starting to use a similar tool in planning routine immunizations.

In October 2007 I was working in a place called Suhbaatar, a province in the flat and often dusty steppes of eastern Mongolia named after the hero of the 1921 revolution.  The primary activity of this trip was to hang out with community health workers in different sums (counties), a few days in each place, in order to better understand the role information played in their provision of services. The last sum I visited normally has about 4000 people, largely pastoralist nomads, living across an area 1.5 times the size of Rhode Island, with roughly half of them concentrated at the sum center during the fall months. A rough spring for the local pastures meant that many of these 4000 had left on otor, pasturing livestock up to 300km away, making it downright desolate.

On my third day in this sum, I asked the doctor managing the local clinic for a tour of the new clinic being built across the street.  GTZ and Lux-Development had both been here recently on health infrastructure projects, but this time the money was coming from the Mongolian government.  The doctor, a nurse practitioner, and I walked across the street where we met the foreman, a man who had come here from the capital Ulaanbaatar (photo).  Though the work crew was already working on the roof – the construction had started two months earlier – I was surprised to hear the doctor, who had worked here for more than 10 years, asking some critical questions about the layout of the new hospital. After several minutes of interrogation, the exasperated foreman claimed this hospital was the same design as one being completed in another sum. What the doctor knew and the foreman didn’t was that I had just visited that sum.  “Is this true?” the doctor asked me. “Does it have the same number of beds?” “Will our hospital be as big?” “No” was the answer on all counts. In consultation with the nurse, the doctor quickly realized this new hospital wouldn’t provide enough space to meet their patient demands.  So they would have to keep parts of the old hospital working to meet their needs.  So much for the touted energy efficiency of the new vakuum sunh (double-paned windows). This was the result of a top-down approach to hospital design.

Earlier this week the New York Times reported on how health outcomes are driving hospital design in U.S. settings (thanks Dr. Marwah for the article pointer):

In many new hospitals and pavilions … semiprivate rooms have vanished. Single-patient rooms are now viewed as an important element of high-quality health care. The benefits of the single room emerged through evidence-based hospital design, a new field that guides health care construction. More than 1,500 studies have examined ways that design can reduce medical errors, infections and falls — and relieve patient stress.

The idea is simple: change the design of the physical environment to reflect the needs of the people in the system – patients, visitors, administrators, caregivers, insurers – with an eye towards improving health outcomes. There are opportunities both for new construction, but also for retrofits. And the solutions are often simple. From the Times article, Princeton’s University Medical Center is installing larger windows “because studies suggest that natural light can reduce depression and that scenes of nature can reduce reported levels of pain”. From a 2007 SFGate article, Kaiser-Permanente is changing the color of the paint on the walls “to cheery spring shades of pale blue, yellow and green” in an effort to be more patient-focused.

All good and well, but what do systems with limited resources have to take from this approach? Quite a bit it seems…

As an example, consider the recent PLoS study from Peru (Escombe et al., 2007) that showed how natural ventilation – an low-cost alternative to negative-pressure isolation rooms - could be used to reduce intrahospital transmission rates of tuberculosis. The recommendation of the study? Open the doors and windows: “Even at the recommended ventilation rate, the calculated risk of airborne contagion was greater in these mechanically ventilated rooms [in modern facilities built 1970-1990] than in naturally ventilated rooms with open windows and doors [in older facilities built pre-1950]“.

As this research shows there are plenty of opportunities to change the way we work within existing facilities to improve outcomes. And there are plenty of opportunities with systems that are renovating and building new hospitals and clinics. A couple current examples: (1) the Millennium Challenge Corporation is renovating 150 health centers in Lesotho; (2) the Asian Development Bank is building 17 new clinics and renovating 7 facilities, including 3 provincial hospitals as part of the Third Health Sector Development Project in Mongolia (PDF).

The human-centered approach can improve health outcomes with simple innovations derived from a better understanding of the needs of a facility’s users. The open question is whether we’ll take advantage of such an approach or whether – in the words of   Roger Ulrich from Texas A&M’s Center for Health Systems and Design - we’ll simply “pay lip service to the evidence”.

It’s been more than two years since we reported on Seattle as the new Geneva, that is, as the new epicenter of global health activity. An article in this morning Journal-Sentinel (Water-engineering firms see potential, challenge in developing countries) – which includes an exclusive interview with the Acumen Fund’s chief executive Jacqueline Novogratz – suggests that Milwaukee is angling to do the same for water technology:

It’s an issue that almost certainly will preoccupy business leaders in metro Milwaukee in their strategy to brand the region as an international hub of water technology. The metro area is home to scores of water-engineering companies. Gov. Jim Doyle and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee this month announced plans to invest millions of dollars for UWM to become a center of freshwater research.

An 2008 article from the same newspaper (Area’s tide could turn on water technology) provides more evidence:

[F]our of the world’s 11 largest water-technology companies have a significant presence in southeastern Wisconsin, according to an analysis of data from a new Goldman Sachs report.

…

Wall Street has tracked automakers, railroads and retailers almost since there were stocks and bonds. But water remains a novelty. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. didn’t begin to research water treatment as a stand-alone industrial sector until late 2005.

While several large MNCs have shown an active interest in clean water in developing countries (e.g., Procter and Gamble, Vestergaard Frandsen, Dow) open questions remain as to what role large MNCs will play in providing access to safe water for the one billion people who don’t have it.

(Thanks to Dr. Jessica Granderson for sending the link)

Cross-posted from Design Research for Global Health.

The California Management Review recently announced the winners of the 2009 Accenture Award: Sara Beckman of Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and Michael Barry, founder of design consultancy Point Forward and Adjunct Professor at Stanford, for their article, Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking (Fall 2007, Vol. 50, No. 1).

From the award website (which is still on the 2008 winner as I write this): “The Accenture Award is given each year to the author (or authors) of the article published in the preceding volume of the California Management Review that has made the most important contribution to improving the practice of management.”

The paper makes a compelling argument that innovation can be achieved by management and provides a model for cross-functional, cross-disciplinary teams to engage in this process. The relevance to global health as I’ve discussed before (really what this entire blog is about) is that the process can help us improve health systems through innovation.

The challenge in coming years will be how to get organizations and institutions working in global health – foundations, Ministries of Health, NGOs, development programs, health research centers, etc. – treating innovation as a way of working, not simply an input or an output.

The abstract/lead-in isn’t openly available online so I’m copying it here:

Companies throughout the world are seeking competitive advantage by leading through innovation, some — such as Apple, Toyota, Google, and Starbucks — with great success. Many countries – such as Singapore, China, Korea, and India — are investing in education systems that emphasize leading through innovation, some by investing specifically in design schools or programs, and others by embedding innovative thinking throughout the curriculum. Business, engineering, and design schools around the U.S. are expanding their efforts to teach students how to innovate, often through multi-disciplinary classes that give students a full experience of the innovation process. However, what does leading through innovation really mean? What does it mean to be a leader, and what does it mean to engage in innovation?

There is a vast literature on leadership covering a wide range of topics: the characteristics of a good leader, how leadership is best displayed in an organization, leadership and vision, authority, leadership styles, and so on. There is also a growing body of literature on innovation and its various facets, much of it focused by application of the innovation process. Hundreds of publications describe the process of innovation for products — both hardware and software — and a growing number of publications focus on innovation in services. Further, there are dozens of books on innovation in building and workplace design.

Here we examine a generic innovation process, grounded in models of how people learn, that can be applied across these sectors. It can be applied to the design and development of both hardware and software products, to the design of business models and services, to the design of organizations and how they work, and to the design of the buildings and spaces in which work takes place, or within which companies interact with their customers. The model has evolved through two streams of thought: design and learning.

This video, which seems to be unaffiliated to the authors, summarizes the article [correction - I just found out that Shealy did work with the authors on this video - Tues-24-Mar-2009 12:18PM PDT]:

[vimeo vimeo.com/3475327]
 
[Innovation as a Learning Process from Roger H. Shealy on Vimeo]

Here are slides from Beckman and Barry’s presentation at the Inside Innovation 2007 Conference and the Google scholar view of who is citing this work.

[(Dis)claimer: Sara Beckman served on my dissertation committee and Michael Barry provided guidance on my applied research in Mongolia]