Research vs Reality



The problems we have discovered are from direct observations and from medical research publications. Before cutting down the number of problem to 10, we wanted to validate them from various stakeholders- doctors, nurses, patients.

To our surprise, many of needs were either not major problems or occurred rarely. Not all problems mentioned in the medical literature reflected the actual reality. This could be because of the difference between research sample size. The varying number of patients in a particular hospital and also the actual patient impact.

Sometimes doctors had contradictory viewpoints on the same topic. So we had to get as many opinions from as many doctors. 


To make sure that the problems actually exists, we had to discuss the problems with various stakeholders-
doctors, nurses, patients, purchase manager of
the hospitals.

This gave us clues as to why the problems exists, where can we add value, who gets benefited the most among the stakeholders, which stakeholder is directly affected by the problem, which stakeholder has a control over important decisions.
Revalidating needs definitely helped us in retaining problems that actually occur and removing those that are just on research papers.
__


Yasu

We would now like to reaffirm our selected problem areas and confirm the validity of our clinical needs.How do we go about that?

Dr Jha

The key is asking the right questions.
Firstly, a thorough background study of the topic of inquiry is important. Next, create specific pools of questions targeted at different stakeholders in the system.
For example, a problem regarding catheter-induced urinary tract infections affects the patient, the nurse and the doctor in different ways.Try analysing the problem from the perspective of all the key players to arrive at a plausible conclusion.Understand the relevance of the need.


The key is asking the right questions.

....from the notebook of Karthik P.B.