Professor Metzler - hope this isn't a shot in the dark and that you remember me — you very kindly let me take 190 in my sophomore year (when it was called Strategy in the IT Firm) and hopefully enjoyed watching me struggle above my weight in a class that I was very underqualified for. So cool to stumble upon what reads like your similarly very kind, thoughtfully created newsletter, and hope the medium of a comment on it (+ subscription; of course!) does not dilute an out-of-the-blue hello and a very warranted thank you for shaping fundamentally the journey I've lead today. Excited to read more :-)
Great to hear from you! Of course I remember you and it's a delight to reconnect. Thanks for the kind word. I have signed up for your newsletter and look forward to future installments!
Useful insights, thanks for sharing. I’m sure in the end a large part of acceptance is going to be less about whether staff and residents like them, and more about whether they save money, staff time and have enabling regulations. Many clinical staff complain that EHRs are a pain and take them away from patient interaction, yet economics and government fiat rule.
Thanks, Stephen. I thought I might hear from you on this one! Might be interesting for you to connect with James at some point.
Agree that deployment economics will dictate uptake beyond a pilot phase. The nature of the robots themselves is also meaningful: Pepper is, at best, a greeter and entertainer; Paro is an attachment device, and thus maybe a substitute for a little bit of staff time or another attachment object (honestly it kind of reminds me of Linus' security blanket); Hug is a point solution for transferring patients from, say, a chair to the bathroom. A member of staff is still involved. Of those, Hug is the closest to being a genuinely assistive device. The others....at best maybe free up staff time a bit but aren't going to lead to substitution. And then monitoring solutions should pay for themselves pretty quickly (e.g. through either fewer sores or better response to incident).
Professor Metzler - hope this isn't a shot in the dark and that you remember me — you very kindly let me take 190 in my sophomore year (when it was called Strategy in the IT Firm) and hopefully enjoyed watching me struggle above my weight in a class that I was very underqualified for. So cool to stumble upon what reads like your similarly very kind, thoughtfully created newsletter, and hope the medium of a comment on it (+ subscription; of course!) does not dilute an out-of-the-blue hello and a very warranted thank you for shaping fundamentally the journey I've lead today. Excited to read more :-)
btw, you may be aware 190t3 was a covid casualty, alas. I still teach UGBA 173 (which was probably UGBA 115 when you were in school).
Great to hear from you! Of course I remember you and it's a delight to reconnect. Thanks for the kind word. I have signed up for your newsletter and look forward to future installments!
Useful insights, thanks for sharing. I’m sure in the end a large part of acceptance is going to be less about whether staff and residents like them, and more about whether they save money, staff time and have enabling regulations. Many clinical staff complain that EHRs are a pain and take them away from patient interaction, yet economics and government fiat rule.
Thanks, Stephen. I thought I might hear from you on this one! Might be interesting for you to connect with James at some point.
Agree that deployment economics will dictate uptake beyond a pilot phase. The nature of the robots themselves is also meaningful: Pepper is, at best, a greeter and entertainer; Paro is an attachment device, and thus maybe a substitute for a little bit of staff time or another attachment object (honestly it kind of reminds me of Linus' security blanket); Hug is a point solution for transferring patients from, say, a chair to the bathroom. A member of staff is still involved. Of those, Hug is the closest to being a genuinely assistive device. The others....at best maybe free up staff time a bit but aren't going to lead to substitution. And then monitoring solutions should pay for themselves pretty quickly (e.g. through either fewer sores or better response to incident).