My thought exactly. When I read the title, I thought they're gonna get more people killed if they use Ferrari F1 pit crew as their learning benchmark lol.
As a die-hard Schumacher fan, I really wanted to see Massa take the title that year, so it was heartbreaking. And yet, I can't help but laugh every time I see the Ferrari crew looking so dejected, carrying that fuel hose back to the garage like a defeated army.
I suppose we shouldn't apply this "Ferrari system" to medical surgery—unless the patient is prepared to have their aorta dragged out along with the equipment.
My first thought was a conversation with a med student friend about the tension between medical research transparency and public policy. For example, it's good to get vaccinated, but some small fraction of people do have lasting side effects, and vaccine skeptics blow it out of proportion to support their views. So, medical professionals may be tempted to downplay vaccine injury to support public vaccination. Of course, doing so just erodes trust further if people notice. Anyways, perhaps this website is afraid people will hurt themselves with ambiguous information.
From your take aways from this article, what did they learn that was "common sense" exactly? I'm not aware of many people working a lot with handovers to ICUs unless they're already working in a hospital, so maybe it's hard to build up "common sense" from a situation you almost never encounter before you're there?
>The new handover was a four stage process. First, we asked the anaesthetist to fill in a standard form that detailed ...
>The receiving doctor used an information transfer aide memoire, a form or checklist specifically designed for this process, to prompt and record the transfer of the appropriate information. Once all the blanks on the form were filled (or discussed where missing), the form was placed in the patient’s notes and acted as the admission note to the ICU, saving everyone time.
if additional forms and checklists save lives, then by all means. I have doubts though. New processes, forms and checklists have high cost, taking additional time and attention resources. If it is an optimization of an already existing process or if the staff have extra amount of their resources to spare then great, otherwise it should come from somewhere. From the same probably already overworked staff. Who as a result would probably shortcut something at some other place. I mean they identified bad transfer of info and less than ideal preparedness of the receiving bed at ICU as the root causes. What was the root cause that the trained staff did such bad info transfer and unpreparedness though? Just a lack of a process/forms/checklists?
Btw, a glaring absence of AI who could have performed necessary forms and checklists data collection and completion. And similar to codegen, the AI could have produced the plan of transfer and monitor the execution of the transfer steps by the "human agents" (using vision, RFID badges, etc.) In that respect the article looks like a medieval text on medicine :)
Checklists are amazingly powerful if they are fast and aligned with staff priorities (or true needs, which should also be aligned with priorities, but that's a separate, and pervasive, issue).
Checklists are worse than useless if they are slow and not relevant.
One cool aspect of working in a high-performance, critical setting, is you learn and absorb amazingly well-research practices without thinking about what it took for things to get there.
During the pandemic we had F1 teams attempting to solve all the world's problems with their superior tech and methods, but nothing really came of it. This story has overtones of 'here we go again'.
Truth be told, Ferrari don't have normal customers. All of them have to be extremely rich. Even then, they get treated as if they are 'tractor company owners' and not worthy. The F1 team has hundreds of people for running two cars, with those cars needing to drive no more than two hours at a time, with no need for the cars to last more than one season, at a cost of many millions.
Compare with the hospitality sector, where customers come from all walks of life, from all over the world. Money has to be made rather than just spent. Rarely is anyone kept waiting (in a decent hotel) and the customer has to come first, at all cost. There are handovers and checklists, which are no big deal.
From my experience of various hospital stays, where waiting is glacial, I honestly believe that just a little bit of 'customer first' attitude would be helpful. Just a few staff that have experience from the real world of hospitality would make a difference, and I just don't see the F1 people having the basic skills, even if they can do high-octane pitstops in seconds.
Working in medical device design has trained me to just ignore this crud. I am literally designing the things that plug in to the other side of this object. I kind of need to have them. (I could get them from a contact, and often do, but that's also often slow. Sometimes extremely slow.)
It's done to keep things that require some level of training or discretion in their use away from the general public. Which I definitely understand. But it's still silly. And restricts some stuff unnecessarily. For example, there's an amazing fast epoxy, nothing weird about it, that you simply can't buy without jumping through stupid hoops. They'd make bank selling that stuff to the general industrial market, it performs better than the big boys' best a lot of the time. But... good luck buying it.
I don't know, I would worried about learning anything from Ferrari F1 team. As they refuse to learn. If it wasn't for their OP engines, they would not have been competitive FOR MANY years.
Their race strategy has been sabotaging drivers for YEARS.
TIL, I am a health professional on the internet. If you need help with any health problems I am here. /s
I'm a tifosi. But what a poor choice of F1 team to learn from successful, coordinated, well and timely executed pit stops.
reply