140 Health Care Uses For Twitter

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.

Hello
Wondering what you think of these suggestions in the light of your experiences with twitter and with healthcare communications so far?
Thanks
Anne Marie

PS I think that we are mistaken to start with the tool and then look for applications. Better to describe the problems and then try and find the best way of addressing them.

@Anne Marie -

Excellent point – you’re spot on. As a nurse, though, I already looked at the applications, so these hypothetical applications are from the perspective of someone who understands what the needs are and how best to exploit evolving technologies.

As I describe in the comments in the ebook, many of these uses for Twittter (or more appropriate micro-sharing services) require major re-thinking of how we provide care. One objective of my list was to whet the appetite of those who long to bring health care out of the Crimean War and into the 21st Century (sarcasm).

What matters isn’t the tool: it’s the care.

The history of science and technology (and art and literature) is littered with examples of people trying out tools without any particular reason or obvious expectation in mind and serendipitously making a major discovery. Going from needs to tools would be the ideal thing to do, but by now we should know that it very rarely yields results! There’s a growing body of thought on this notion, e.g., Nassim Taleb, Michael Raynor (“Strategy Paradox”), and even the venerable Peter Drucker, who I will quote:

‘The history of IBM equally shows what paying attention to the unexpected success can do. … When IBM was at its lowest point—so the story goes [in the middle of the Depression]—Thomas Watson, Sr., the founder, found himself at a dinner party sitting next to a lady. When she heard his name, she said: “Are you the Mr Watson of IBM? Why does your sales manager refuse to demonstrate your machine to me?” What a lady would want with an accounting machine Thomas Watson could not possibly figure out, nor did it help him much when she told him she was the director of the New York Public Library; it turned out he had never been in a public library. But next morning, he appeared there as soon as its doors opened. Watson walked out two hours later with enough of an order to cover next month’s payroll.’

Very few could imagine what a librarian would want with a counting machine. The situation is probably just as bad as the rest of us trying to get our work done!

@Phil, I was reflecting on Ms Cunningham’s reply in my comment: the usefulness of Twitter in your pursuits will be determined by trying it and tinkering with it—exactly what you’re doing and what ought to be encouraged. Its usefulness probably cannot be predicted by a top-down analysis of the end goals/applications/problems. Go forth, try new tools, tinker! and great unexpected things will follow. Don’t try and theorize a lot about what “ought” to work, (although this is what one is “supposed” to do, as evidenced by the first reply).

Morton Meyers, a career radiologist, recently wrote a fantastic book, “Happy Accidents,” about the pervasiveness of serendipity in medical discovery, and although he doesn’t talk a lot about medical *processes* like you’re investigating, I’m sure the same thing applies to that as to the clinical discoveries he enumerates.