Thursday
Oct192000
188 - Special Report on e-Learning Breakthrough: Cardiac Procedures Live, Moderated and Interactive
October 19, 2000
4 Weeks to TechLearn 2000 - http://www.techlearn.com
Special Report on e-Learning Breakthrough: Cardiac Procedures Live,
Moderated and Interactive
(Washington, DC) Several hours ago, I was part of one of the most unique
e-Learning experiences of my life. Imagine a conference hall with 7,000
cardiologists taking part in a live by satellite interactive, group voting
enhanced, high intensity discussion process centered around heart surgery
taking place in 3 countries around the world.
I had the privilege of being an observer at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular
Therapeutics 2000 event, as a guest of John Abele, the Chairman of Boston
Scientific. John thought that I should see "a truly breakthrough example
of e-Learning" that he felt would get me thinking. So, this morning at 8
am, here is what I saw:
* Six patients prepared for cutting edge heart procedures in operating rooms
in Israel, Italy and New York City.
* Each operating room had 3 to 8 TV cameras and scanning equipment to show
these operations live and give internal imaging views.
* The cardiologists in each operating room were pushing the edge of current
practice, doing very complicated procedures that were far in front of
standard approaches. And, the several of the patients were quite
complicated and serious in condition.
* There was a live satellite feed and connection to the various doctors, so
that we could communicate live and interact with the doctors during the
process as well as see the various read-outs on instruments.
* There was a "reaction panel" comprised of top cardiologists that had some
quite different views and opinions about the procedures underway.
* The doctors in the audience had response keypads to vote in real time on
what procedure they would do or whether they would continue or stop an action.
* There were four screens filled with real time data and context studies to
help the group place what was happening into context.
* The patients had full awareness of the process, had signed consent
agreements and in fact were awake and responding during much of the
procedure.
It was a deeply powerful learning experience! Here are a few impressions
that stick in my mind several hours later:
* The process maps to a very rapid dissemination of medical
information/knowledge, quite faster than the normal medical publishing
process. It allows approved trials to be witnessed in real time and for
fast dissemination.
* The group process fostered an incredible level of dialogue and conflict
that brought forth a level of intellectual dialogue on best practices that I
have rarely seen in other professions.
* The group voting process seemed scary to me at first, but actually gave
some feedback to the doctors in the operating rooms and placed the learner's
risk taking process in perspective.
* The intensity of side dialogues were amazing, as we watched and reacted in
small peer conversations alongside the real time group interaction.
* The international perspective gave a global element to the entire learning
experience and we were able to see very different attitudes towards similar
innovations in diverse cultures.
* The process started with a full disclosure by every doctor of any
financial interests they had in any products .. and the focus was not on
which medical product they used but rather on the impact of a technique.
* The use of research to frame the discussion was powerful, as we were
seeing a multi-dimensional view of the points of conflict.
Even though it was at a convention center, it was an e-Learning experience.
Using technology to extend dramatically the process. I can also imagine how
it might migrate, in part, to an on-line experience that would be viewable
from doctor's office rather.
I was also jealous. I wondered when the learning and training profession
would have this level of an open and intense discussion about what actually
works and does not work in each e-Learning genre as they come to the field.
Watch for a mini-version of that at TechLearn 2000.
Did the patients mind? Actually, the outcomes and survival rates for this
process are higher than normal procedures... quite the level of expertise
applied to a procedure. Was the live element necessary? I think it added
greater levels of learner attention and made the experience quite real
versus simulated. Do all doctors approve of this model of medical
knowledge transfer? No, there are some that are quite opposed.
Hats off to the folks at TCT2000 for increasing my view of what e-Learning could be all about.
Special Report on e-Learning Breakthrough: Cardiac Procedures Live,
Moderated and Interactive
(Washington, DC) Several hours ago, I was part of one of the most unique
e-Learning experiences of my life. Imagine a conference hall with 7,000
cardiologists taking part in a live by satellite interactive, group voting
enhanced, high intensity discussion process centered around heart surgery
taking place in 3 countries around the world.
I had the privilege of being an observer at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular
Therapeutics 2000 event, as a guest of John Abele, the Chairman of Boston
Scientific. John thought that I should see "a truly breakthrough example
of e-Learning" that he felt would get me thinking. So, this morning at 8
am, here is what I saw:
* Six patients prepared for cutting edge heart procedures in operating rooms
in Israel, Italy and New York City.
* Each operating room had 3 to 8 TV cameras and scanning equipment to show
these operations live and give internal imaging views.
* The cardiologists in each operating room were pushing the edge of current
practice, doing very complicated procedures that were far in front of
standard approaches. And, the several of the patients were quite
complicated and serious in condition.
* There was a live satellite feed and connection to the various doctors, so
that we could communicate live and interact with the doctors during the
process as well as see the various read-outs on instruments.
* There was a "reaction panel" comprised of top cardiologists that had some
quite different views and opinions about the procedures underway.
* The doctors in the audience had response keypads to vote in real time on
what procedure they would do or whether they would continue or stop an action.
* There were four screens filled with real time data and context studies to
help the group place what was happening into context.
* The patients had full awareness of the process, had signed consent
agreements and in fact were awake and responding during much of the
procedure.
It was a deeply powerful learning experience! Here are a few impressions
that stick in my mind several hours later:
* The process maps to a very rapid dissemination of medical
information/knowledge, quite faster than the normal medical publishing
process. It allows approved trials to be witnessed in real time and for
fast dissemination.
* The group process fostered an incredible level of dialogue and conflict
that brought forth a level of intellectual dialogue on best practices that I
have rarely seen in other professions.
* The group voting process seemed scary to me at first, but actually gave
some feedback to the doctors in the operating rooms and placed the learner's
risk taking process in perspective.
* The intensity of side dialogues were amazing, as we watched and reacted in
small peer conversations alongside the real time group interaction.
* The international perspective gave a global element to the entire learning
experience and we were able to see very different attitudes towards similar
innovations in diverse cultures.
* The process started with a full disclosure by every doctor of any
financial interests they had in any products .. and the focus was not on
which medical product they used but rather on the impact of a technique.
* The use of research to frame the discussion was powerful, as we were
seeing a multi-dimensional view of the points of conflict.
Even though it was at a convention center, it was an e-Learning experience.
Using technology to extend dramatically the process. I can also imagine how
it might migrate, in part, to an on-line experience that would be viewable
from doctor's office rather.
I was also jealous. I wondered when the learning and training profession
would have this level of an open and intense discussion about what actually
works and does not work in each e-Learning genre as they come to the field.
Watch for a mini-version of that at TechLearn 2000.
Did the patients mind? Actually, the outcomes and survival rates for this
process are higher than normal procedures... quite the level of expertise
applied to a procedure. Was the live element necessary? I think it added
greater levels of learner attention and made the experience quite real
versus simulated. Do all doctors approve of this model of medical
knowledge transfer? No, there are some that are quite opposed.
Hats off to the folks at TCT2000 for increasing my view of what e-Learning could be all about.
Reader Comments