Researchers often have the luxury of time. They have the luxury to read, evaluate, question and reflect. They can devote several hours or days to a single question, moving from a guideline to the studies behind it, to the reasoning, and comparing effect sizes, seeing where the evidence is strong and where it is weaker. It is a slow process and, in many ways, a privileged line of work.
As a clinician, you rarely have the time.
Nevertheless, medical questions arise all the time in day-to-day clinical practice that warrant a review of the literature. These might concern the dosage for a patient with impaired kidney function; whether the new recommendation really applies to this patient group; what the latest European-level guidelines actually state; or whether new findings have emerged that may shape the next set of guidelines. The question is just as important as the one posed by the researcher, but the clinician needs to get an overview of the evidence in a matter of seconds, not an afternoon.
That is the gap we are building Standard Medicine to bridge.
We build for one person
Much of the technology used in healthcare today is designed for someone other than the doctor. It is designed for administrative purposes, to enable data to flow between systems. The doctor ends up being the one who enters the data, rather than the one who receives assistance.
We have chosen a different approach. We are building our service for the individual doctor. Not for the hospital as an organisation, and not for a medical records system. For you, sitting with the patient in front of you and needing medical information that you can verify.
It sounds simple, but it’s a choice we have to make time and time again. Every time we prioritise a feature, draw up a contract or talk to a new partner, we ask the same question: will this be better for the doctor using the tool? If the answer is no, we’ve built the wrong thing, however good the technology may be.
Good answers, not just quick answers
Saving time is the aim, but not at any cost. A quick answer that cannot be relied upon is worse than no answer at all.
That is why we are building Standard Medicine on the same foundations that I myself would like to see as a researcher. The answers must be based on national and international guidelines and high-quality medical research. Every statement must be traceable back to its source, so that you can see for yourself what it is based on and assess it. We want you to be able to go from the question to the answer to the study in a matter of seconds, and decide for yourself whether the evidence is sound for your patient.
That is the difference between getting an answer and getting the background information. The clinical judgement is yours. Our job is to ensure that you have the best available knowledge at your fingertips when you make that judgement.
Evidence-based care for everyone, not just for a few
We want every doctor in a hospital, a health centre or a private clinic to have the same opportunity as a researcher to base their decisions on the latest evidence. Whether you work at a university hospital in the capital or a health centre in a smaller town. Whether it’s quiet in the surgery or you have ten patients in the waiting room.
When doctors are given better resources, healthcare improves.
Why we’re doing this
I have been on both sides: in research, where evidence is generated, and in clinical practice, where it is applied. The gap between them is too wide. Standard Medicine exists to bring these two worlds closer together.
We are by no means finished with this project. We listen to our colleagues and to all the feedback we receive from those who use the tool. If you have any comments, a question that hasn’t been answered, or an idea on how we can improve, please get in touch. It is for you that we are building this.
Citer ainsi