It's amazing how there are systems that exist to ideally take care of your citizens, which result in people having their limbs amputated and their quality of life vastly decreased because "we just don't do that here" - it's an attitude of "well, at least you're breathing".
If it wasn't for that medical student, that man wouldn't have been able to walk ever again.
I hope this method of treatment gains widespread adoption - I'm not familiar with the NHS, is this type of thing common, where innovative treatments like this take forever to be adopted into their system?
Like every other country in the World, the NHS has to take inputs from regulators in assessing a new form of care or medical device. There is a whole document specifically on how to get medical devices approved for use within the NHS [1]
I worked in that space for a couple of years as CTO for a software company doing calendar optimisation for community nursing (i.e. nurses visiting patients at home). It was challenging at times, becausethe output could affect patient care (for example, incorrectly scheduling a morning insulin injection for an afternoon appointment), and so it was considered a Class 2 medical device, so we had to go through some of the hoops. I was actively encouraged by the people doing the quality assessments to use a waterfall approach to plan and deliver my releases very slowly.
The creators must have done that leg work for this to be used as a trial, so now its uptake will come down to cost/benefit of immediate and long-term treatment. And, to make things more complicated, there isn't one buyer for the NHS making this decision: it's 200+ independent NHS trusts who all make their own spending decisions in line with central policy. Until it becomes national policy to use this treatment, it's going to be each trust making their own mind up.
However, the quote "we had nothing to lose" sounds like this might be a cost effective mechanism compared to long-term treatment of an amputee. It obviously produces a much better patient outcome compared to amputation.
I'd therefore expect it to be in widespread use within a couple of years, maybe, depending on whether the manufacturer can support/scale delivery and training and whether trusts are left to figure this out or whether central bodies pass down a policy on using it.
> I hope this method of treatment gains widespread adoption - I'm not familiar with the NHS, is this type of thing common, where innovative treatments like this take forever to be adopted into their system?
I think you should ask: which healthcare system takes not forever to adopt innovative treatments?
It's amazing how there are systems that exist to ideally take care of your citizens, which result in people having their limbs amputated and their quality of life vastly decreased because "we just don't do that here" - it's an attitude of "well, at least you're breathing".
If it wasn't for that medical student, that man wouldn't have been able to walk ever again.
I hope this method of treatment gains widespread adoption - I'm not familiar with the NHS, is this type of thing common, where innovative treatments like this take forever to be adopted into their system?
Like every other country in the World, the NHS has to take inputs from regulators in assessing a new form of care or medical device. There is a whole document specifically on how to get medical devices approved for use within the NHS [1]
I worked in that space for a couple of years as CTO for a software company doing calendar optimisation for community nursing (i.e. nurses visiting patients at home). It was challenging at times, becausethe output could affect patient care (for example, incorrectly scheduling a morning insulin injection for an afternoon appointment), and so it was considered a Class 2 medical device, so we had to go through some of the hoops. I was actively encouraged by the people doing the quality assessments to use a waterfall approach to plan and deliver my releases very slowly.
The creators must have done that leg work for this to be used as a trial, so now its uptake will come down to cost/benefit of immediate and long-term treatment. And, to make things more complicated, there isn't one buyer for the NHS making this decision: it's 200+ independent NHS trusts who all make their own spending decisions in line with central policy. Until it becomes national policy to use this treatment, it's going to be each trust making their own mind up.
However, the quote "we had nothing to lose" sounds like this might be a cost effective mechanism compared to long-term treatment of an amputee. It obviously produces a much better patient outcome compared to amputation.
I'd therefore expect it to be in widespread use within a couple of years, maybe, depending on whether the manufacturer can support/scale delivery and training and whether trusts are left to figure this out or whether central bodies pass down a policy on using it.
[1] https://innovation.nhs.uk/innovation-guides/regulation/pdf/
> I hope this method of treatment gains widespread adoption - I'm not familiar with the NHS, is this type of thing common, where innovative treatments like this take forever to be adopted into their system?
I think you should ask: which healthcare system takes not forever to adopt innovative treatments?
My grandpa had on of his feet amputated due to diabetes, so this development is inctedible to me, amazing.
I susoect though, this is specific to verrucae, an infection could not be treated the same way, correct?
On the upside, I was treated with acid for verrucae when I was a kid and I suspect microwaves might be less painful...
Verruca is an infection — just a fungal one that usually remains on the surface.
I guess my question is: do microwaves work only for verrucae, or do they work for other types of infections?
Nitpicking: verruca is viral - some strains of HPV are to blame (not the ones we can vaccine against).
TIL - thank you!