Tear down the convention. Submit now! The most innovative session

Healthcare. Say the word out loud. Taste the bittersweet flavor of failure. We do not live in an age of genuine innovation; we live in the Age of the Weak Compromise. A horizon of half-baked solutions, of updates no one asked for, of systems held together with tape. ICT in healthcare is not an engine for progress; it is a rusting anchor chain dragging the future to the bottom of the ocean. Today’s “improvements” are tomorrow’s feeble excuses.

You know better. For months—perhaps years—you have been sitting on that one transformative invention. You see the chaos, the waste, the endless political roundtables. You whisper about silos and administrative swamp deltas. You thought your idea was too “out of the box,” too disruptive for this fearful, broken system.

But complaining is the sport of cowards. Talking about change is the fig leaf of mediocrity. Submissions are open today, effective immediately!

This is the only escape route for your radical idea. This is YOUR ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to demolish all bureaucratic barriers and bypass the established order. Because the clock is ticking.

Most people talk about innovation. Few execute. Are YOU that singular exception?

This is not an invitation for a polite brainstorming session. This is a summons. A call to arms. It is time to leave the catacombs of convention. Do not bring an idea. Bring a revolution.

The most innovative session

On Wednesday, January 28, 2026, from 11:30 AM to 12:10 PM in the MECC Maastricht, the earth will tremble. We are not just organizing a session; we are creating the zero point of the future. A nuclear fusion of brilliant intellect and pure, unadulterated audacity: The Most Innovative Session of the ICT&Health Global Conference 2026.

You get 120 seconds to destroy the world as we now know it and rebuild it. No bureaucratic clutter, no red tape, no barriers. Only your brilliant mind, distilled to the essence of a bomb.

Your vision must be so sharp, so inevitable, that it fits literally into two tweets. Two sentences with which you radically dismantle the established order.

But be warned. This is not child’s play. We are hosting the most defining 120 seconds of your career. You are about to pitch to the absolute top of the industry. This is the Olympus of healthcare innovation.

The apex of the industry

They are not looking for improvement. They demand a total dismantling of the foundation! They want you to dissolve the glue holding the current sectors together and re-bond them into an architecture they haven’t yet dared to dream of.

Bart Collet: The Hyperadvancer. He smells the scent of connections where others see only the chaos of a failed system.
Gabrielle Speijer: The Catalyst. She forces change. If your pitch is just a slight nudge, she will wipe you away with her impatience for sluggishness.
Michiel Tebbes: The Futurologist. He already lives in 2035. If your vision doesn’t extend beyond the next quarter, he will treat you like an archaeological relic.
Bart Timmers: The Physician. The doctor who is completely reinventing medical practice. He demands what is necessary for the patient of tomorrow.

These are not judges; they are challengers. Persuade. Astonish. Dominate.

If you succeed—if your vision is radical enough and you bridge multiple sectors with a grace that tests the boundaries of hubris—you will be initiated instantly into the elite of healthcare innovators. The crowd votes with you: your pitch will render the public verdict and confirm your legendary status. The energy will be unprecedented.

This is your chance to transform from a name on a badge to the architect of tomorrow.

Are you the hero we need? Or will you let this chance slip away for someone with more courage?

The healthcare system is collapsing, and we are handing you the sledgehammer. Submissions are OPEN NOW. Sign up and claim what is yours!

No guts, no glory; register here!

Source: ICT&health — “Tear down the convention. Submit now! The most innovative session” (published 10-12-2025)

Interview preparation for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

What exactly does a radiation oncologist do? And how is radiotherapy used in breast cancer?
As a radiation oncologist, I treat people with breast cancer with radiation, often alongside surgery or other treatments, to prevent the disease from returning. Expectations are becoming increasingly favorable: more cures, more precise radiation so that healthy tissue is spared better with less burden, and treatment plans increasingly tailored to the whole person and their context.

How do you make a difference for patients? When are you satisfied?
I am satisfied when I have the connection—that is a condition for a good view of the total health situation. My drive is to deploy rapid technological developments in such a way that we deliver top care together: me with the knowledge and expertise of my team, while the patient is facilitated in a patient-focused way to take control of their own health.

What are you proud of?
My team—that we keep each other sharp on the basis of the Hippocratic Oath, our professional value that we stand for as doctors.

We do that very concretely: for example, we use the 1-on-1 doctor-patient relationship so that as a patient you know who oversees your whole picture throughout the trajectory. We keep it fresh by addressing each other on things we see can still be improved—through personal contact doing our best for people who entrust themselves to us.

The most beautiful thing about your profession?
Top performance—delivering a top performance each time for every new patient with the team. As a technical specialty, we have always considered contact with the patient and team as the starting point. The most beautiful thing is that through AI and new technology we can actually create even more space for that human contact.

Collaborating on breast cancer radiotherapy in the region: experiences and lessons

Author: Gabriëlle Speijer

In recent years, radiotherapy teams have collaborated intensively on breast cancer to improve care for breast cancer at a regional level. We are happy to share our insights to inspire colleagues and offer practical tips. We also like to hear what we can still do better, because we are never “done”. However, we have taken valuable steps towards better care, while at the same time having a lot of fun in the collaboration!

Started simply and informally, out of need

Our collaboration arose, on the one hand, from the wish of radiation oncologists across the 3 locations to align medical protocols better with each other. On the other hand, from physicists and radiotherapy technologists who were going to set up the new planning system together. Through open conversations and searching for joint solutions, we have laid a foundation for improving the quality of care.

Bringing out the best in each other

Success came from mutual respect and the shared ambition to improve care. This required time and space for complex topics. The goal always remained central: better care for patients. That helped to discuss deadlines and disappointments with understanding for each other’s context and to prioritize again.

An example: a protocol adjustment was not implemented despite consultation. In a new conversation, this was revised, creating space for new agreements. By keeping each other sharp and light-hearted, a pleasant collaboration emerged—a powerful recipe for success!

Not just attending the meeting

In the beginning, there were naturally more consultation moments. Fortunately, these grew into active meetings with clear roles, responsibilities and timelines. Duplicate consultations made way for better prepared meetings, in which only relevant people and specific topics were involved. This increased efficiency and created more space in the agenda. It does require sharpness: knowing what you are responsible for and also what you are not! 😊

Harmonizing is not simply doing everything the same!

Collaborating often means striving for harmonization. We should explain that briefly. We distinguish between undesirable variations, such as differences in isodose lines, constraints or radiation schedules, and desirable variations, such as planning techniques or the AI implementation route. Through a phased approach with clear agreements, we eliminate undesirable variations by standardizing or harmonizing them and create space for learning together and innovating.

Although ambitious, this is achievable thanks to committed teams. Clinical physics plays a key role in identifying technical possibilities and adjusting them with an eye on the consequences. Many ideas, however, come from fellow radiotherapy technologists and technicians!

What were the challenges?

There were certainly challenges, such as the absence of colleague Marcelle, whose commitment remains unforgettable. This emphasizes that project-based support and setting priorities are essential. For collaboration, space is needed to do things differently or, on the contrary, not to do them. Therefore, map out what is truly necessary and feed the administrators the commonly stated goal and consequences. Why?

Future perspective

Because many challenges lie ahead of us, such as staff shortages, sustainability, incidents,… It is important to focus on what is possible. That means making very clear what we really have to do ourselves from our role in order to deliver care together (at top level).

This requires choices: doing things differently and organizing differently. It is also necessary to make full use of technological developments. Concretely, for our collaboration this means that we have reduced meetings somewhat, brought matters in and under at a national level within the national breast cancer platform of the NVRO, and that we as a group are focusing on sustainable employability and AI this year.

Care starts with the click between doctor and patient

What happens when you combine a deeply rooted interest in technology with a passion for people? Radiation oncologist Gabriëlle Speijer grew up among the technical experiments of her father and developed a fascination for care and innovation at an early age, where innovation for her means more than technological progress. However promising AI, digital twins and data-driven care may be — they only have value if they contribute to the most important thing in healthcare: human connection. “The click between doctor and patient is decisive for the success of a treatment,” Speijer states. She argues for a digital reinterpretation of the Hippocratic Oath and calls on healthcare professionals to take the lead over data and technology. This cover story reflects the conversation with Speijer about vision, trust and the power of real contact — in a time in which healthcare calls for meaningful choices.

Can you tell us something about your background and what led you to immerse yourself in healthcare innovation?

“I work as a medical specialist in Radiotherapy at Haga. That is technically advanced, team-oriented and multidisciplinary. In collaboration with industry, we innovate across domains. From my profession, the focus is on the person within a challenging oncological trajectory. Delivering tailor-made care together with the team is a challenge that I fully commit to. I want to learn from the contact with the patient, gain knowledge and share it. And technology is a very valuable support in that.”

“That interest in technology was, as it were, spoon-fed to me, since my father had technology as his area of focus. He ‘used’ me as a test subject and super user for his technical projects. I then saw it as a kind of guilty pleasure to, for example, connect all devices in such a way and program the remote controls in such a way that only I could operate them. At a certain point, I was about fifteen, I experienced that someone in my surroundings made, in the contact with her general practitioner, a decision that I found strange. The GP left and the person in question then decided to flush the medication that that doctor had prescribed down the toilet, because she could not or did not want to swallow it. That aspect had not come up at all! I found that a waste of the medication and the fact that it was not in favor of the health of this woman. I did not understand why no good connection had been made between doctor and care seeker. That motivated me enormously at the time to want to become a doctor. I thought: I want and must improve this in any case.”

You have updated the Hippocratic Oath. Why was that necessary?

“That has everything to do with the fact that the most central aspect in the work is that you make a connection with your care seeker, whether that is a treatment or an advice or a suggestion. Due to the lack of good safeguarding at the level of ICT and data security, the confidential relationship unintentionally shifts towards a business relationship. This threatens the basis of trust, which is precisely the strength of a good doctor-patient relationship. If that connection succeeds, you get a good picture of the other person. For that, confidentiality is needed. Only then does someone dare to make themselves vulnerable. And that also applies the other way around for doctors. They too need a degree of confidentiality.”

“Sometimes that is quite a challenge, because you do not always just have a click with each other. I then really have to search for that click. If I translate the Oath to the present time in this light, then it means that you say: I promise that I deliver the best care and health to the patient in confidentiality. And digital support is crucial in that. Digital certainty of data: confidentiality, availability and integrity with regard to that digital information or data, is a hard condition. Patient and doctor must have a safe digital environment to be able to gain direct access to the newest technological possibilities. To that end, they must collaborate with the technology developers and the data specialists. Moreover, they must be able to bring in technology, improve it and, if necessary, take it out of circulation when it does not meet requirements.”

“By digitally safe I also mean transparent and testable. At European level we are working on making agreements about this. What is still missing here in my view, is that at global level we can have a framework with principles that are derived from our professional values. Where you, from your role as healthcare professional, client, citizen, technology developer and data specialist, step in digitally, and together manage the data with which technology is developed. I think doctors should take the lead to take that on. It must be arranged at the source, with the doctors and the patients.”

“Such a framework is also partly the key to creating sustainability in the digital ecosystem, because too much cold data is still being stored now, that does not contribute to solving the problem. In fact, it only takes up space and causes noise, insecurity and serious risks to keep the Oath standing.”

Suppose all of this is feasible, what will healthcare practice look like then?

“Then the doctor and the patient, in other words the citizen and the healthcare professional, are in the lead over the technology. The communication is under their control. And because you need a click for that, you must also have a choice, both as doctor and as patient. This should be digitally supported. Because that click is extremely important for healthcare outcomes. That is still underestimated.”

“A hospital is not optimally set up to be able to ‘choose’ a doctor, if the click is not there, but more can be done about this. For example by having a secretariat properly ask the referrer what exactly the care question is, so that they can look for the best match per request. The shortage of staff does not make this easier unfortunately, but perhaps a platform can be created by doctors where they bundle their strengths in this area. That can also be region-wide, and this fits perfectly with that new oath as I advocate it. Because it is about the fact that as a doctor you want to help your patient in the best possible way. If that means that you have to refer him to a colleague in another hospital, for example for a second opinion, then th

Digital space for health: enter at your own risk!

“A system is not the sum of the behavior of its parts it’s a product of their interactions.”
Russell Ackoff

In the digital era, outdated, financially administrative infrastructure undermines the doctor-client relationship and effective care delivery. People’s data are increasingly being digitized, but its management is done by institutions, not by individuals themselves. This means that people themselves do not have control over their own (medical) data and interaction between doctor, institution and client is supported only to a limited extent. Current innovations and the management of the explosively growing information from various domains require reliable data, and more attention is needed for that. The current digital set-up, which does not place the doctor-client relationship at the center, prevents sustainable cross-sector use of data. Increasing societal challenges such as ageing, staff shortages and climate change reinforce the urgency to address this problem.

It is therefore time for a fundamental revision of our digital healthcare infrastructure. A digital space that takes the professional value of the doctor with the client as the starting point and facilitates cross-sector collaboration can — as Ackoff suggests — lead to a more human-centered approach to healthcare and to unprecedented breakthroughs for global health in the digital era.

Such a digital space can therefore be defined as a virtual environment that can potentially connect people and technologies without limitation in order to create, build, use knowledge and carry out numerous digital activities. It covers both the space for technology and that for data.

Passive digitization without fundamental adjustments

The healthcare landscape has undergone passive digitization worldwide, in which existing processes have been “digitized” without fundamental adjustments. In clinical practice, documentation systems are used that were originally designed for administrative-financial tasks. Health information is distributed between different systems, making it difficult for both doctors and clients to oversee where specific information is located. In practice, this can mean that a client with a chronic condition has to explain their medical history again at every hospital visit.

Despite various good initiatives, the current digital space leads to unnecessary administrative burdens for doctors, sometimes duplicate examinations are carried out and this can even be harmful to health because information is not (timely) available.

Fragmented knowledge and lack of overall insight

Despite all technological progress in recent decades, more than eighty percent of health-determining data is still missing in clinical practice. While client and society do expect doctors to stand for reliable health advice and treatments. Nor do our own health-determining data appear to be easily available to gain more control over health. Table 1 shows an overview of various domains and the related health-determining data and how certain factors influence them.

Meanwhile, there is a proliferation of apps, portals, and other technological gadgets on the market, however their development often takes place separately from clinical practice. In the best case, this technology therefore delivers limited added value and sometimes even (serious) risk for health. The increase of AI models with effect on health will put even more pressure on the deployment of shared expertise of doctor and client. In order to be able to steer this, health-determining data will first have to come under shared management. In addition, healthcare is increasingly superspecializing, whereby domains are often studied separately and knowledge remains fragmented. As a result, a client wonders more than once who still has an overview of his or her health and data remain relatively limited in terms of interpretation and thus value. This same paradoxical effect can be observed with medical guidelines: keeping up is increasingly a challenge, as a result of which the vast majority still remains insufficiently substantiated. Although technology therefore provides access to a lot of information, this does not automatically also mean being well informed.

Lack of an integrated digital health picture

A complete digital health picture, based on all available health-related data, can drastically change care. Through a smart combination of real-time data, continuous insight into health arises. This facilitates the transition from incidental care to continuous monitoring and ultimately to predictive and prescriptive analysis. As a result, doctor and client can make better informed decisions. Despite the available technology, the current fragmented digital environment hinders an effective implementation of this concept.

Lack of control over health data

The current digital space shows serious shortcomings, with the main problem being the lack of control over health data by doctors and clients. This undermines trust and hinders the professional functioning of doctors.

Digital security requires that healthcare institutions take all necessary measures to comply with current standards, without hindering innovation and development through limited data availability. Doctors encounter significant obstacles in both clinical work and innovation, often with the incorrect explanation that “it would not be allowed because of the GDPR”. This creates an undesirable situation that harms professionalism. After all, it is not the GDPR that prohibits sharing data; this law actually provides guidelines for how data availability can take place safely.

Given the European developments, it is important to act from shared values such as human rights, privacy and transparency in the design of the ICT structure. This means — especially now that the European Health Data Space is being set up — that the citizen (together with his or her trusted doctor) comes into and remains in control over data that is about him or her.

Digital space is designed dangerously

The current digital space in healthcare is not only unattractive, but also risky for care and health. A well-designed digital environment can increase doctors’ job satisfaction, improve their performance and promote their sustainable employability. For clients it can lead to better control over their health and improved outcomes due to reduced stress. It is crucial to present health information with the right emotional context, which promotes the “checking in” of clients and the tuning in of doctors. This is essential for effective health collaboration. Research shows that chronic stress or negative experiences can negatively affect health, the “nocebo effect”. A poor user experience can result in less personal doctor-client contact, overlooking essential information and incomplete medical record formation.

A user-friendly digital environment that offers the client more insight during the treatment trajectory in, for example, tailor-made and explained imaging not only creates calm, but also enables the person involved to take control in time over relevant matters. By making smart use of AI technology, such as speech recognition for making notes, doctors can better concentrate on the client during consultations, which strengthens the doctor-client relationship and improves the quality of care.

Professionalism under pressure, digital space not designed for it

The increasing digitization in healthcare puts compliance with the Hippocratic Oath under pressure. This fundamental professional value of the doctor should be given a new interpretation in the current context (see figure 1).

Confidentiality and the promotion of health are jeopardized by a digital space that is not designed with ethical principles as a guideline. This tension between modern technology and traditional medical ethics calls for a careful reconsideration of the design of the digital space.

Impact of the current digital space on the doctor-client relationship

The digitization process in recent decades has mainly focused on the institutions and partnerships in which care is offered. In doing so, a crucial step has been skipped: the doctor-client relationship that rests on mutual trust. Communication between doctor and client over time should be ensured as a common thread: open to each other, confidential to the outside world and shared on the basis of dynamic mutual consent. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the foundation for the digital space for health is therefore missing, with the following risks.

Breach of trust
The crucial bond of trust between doctor and client threatens to be undermined, which leads to worse outcomes for the health of the client. For example, reduced job satisfaction is experienced due to an increase in administration because of excessive emphasis on accountability for the doctor. In addition, the relationship threatens to become more business-like in character, in which mutual expectations do not automatically remain aligned.

Limitation of autonomy
There is reduced control by doctor and client over health data, risks due to the development of all kinds of services and products without input from healthcare professionals and their clients. Reliable data are necessary for these services and products and for the correct interpretation of data, continuous expertise and experience are required (“data curation”).

Increasing technological dependency
Doctors have limited influence on technology development, which results in delayed innovation and high dropout of new services and products (valleys of death). The first valley of death arises when a prototype or concept needs additional funding but investors are reluctant due to the high risks and long time horizon. This means that developments that are crucial for societal health in the longer term have a high risk of being left out.

The second valley of death occurs when scaling up to broad market acceptance, in which the product does not sufficiently match the market. Development and steering of technology outside the expertise and attention of the doctor in the consumer market thereby becomes a more attractive route, possibly driven by interests that conflict with the professional values of the doctor and thus potentially negative consequences for the health of society. For innovative strong concepts and products, on the other hand, it is almost impossible to acquire a position in the market, which threatens to make the “big player” even stronger and further drive the vicious circle of vendor lock-in. This dependency on technology not only carries the risk of a lack of innovation, but even a threat to health(care).

These developments form a threat to the professional freedom of doctors and the self-determination of clients, with potentially serious consequences for the quality of healthcare.

Urgency: address fundamental shortcomings now!

In the coming years we face increasingly complex health issues due to ageing, staff shortages, migration-related housing problems and climate change. There is an urgent need for a digital space in which doctors and clients can work on health safely and freely while simultaneously innovating with all relevant stakeholders in the ecosystem.

MCT model as a blueprint

To make the digital space for health safe, the design must take into account the following elements — which are closely related to each other — (see figure 2, the MCT model):

The MCT Model shows a fundamental system approach for a sustainable learning global digital space for health, in which three essential components — Mindset, Collaboration and Technology — are in continuous interaction with each other. As a result, innovation, research, development of products and services are not only implemented, but sustainably anchored in the cyber-physical health system.

Mindset
■ Openness and transparency: everyone contributes from their own expertise and experience.
■ Cross-sector collaboration based on shared values, with the Hippocratic Oath as a guideline.
■ Continuous learning: flexibility and innovation are central, with a focus on valuable improvements.
■ Sustainable handling of data: data as a source for health improvement, managed from the doctor-client relationship.

Collaboration
■ Trust relationships: the doctor-client relationship as the foundation for broader collaboration and thus also the management of technology and data.
■ Bundling expertise: multisector deployment of knowledge and experience for health improvement.

Technology
■ Supportive: in line with shared values and the Hippocratic Oath.
■ Innovative: continuously developed and improved, with the possibility of modular adjustment.
■ Data curation, management and availability: enables digital, specific and reversible control over health-related data by doctors and clients from the design.

This approach safeguards a dynamic, safe and effective digital health environment.

Human interaction as the basis for digital innovation

To address fundamental shortcomings in the digital space, it is essential to approach them from the perspective of how people ideally interact with each other in the physical world. The current digital space seems to completely reverse this natural interaction. We seem to have become accustomed to a digital world that approaches us in an unnatural way. It is therefore crucial to build from personal trust relationships between people, starting from the doctor and client. On this basis, an organic, cross-sector collaboration can then be developed, which acts as a connecting force and grows seamlessly into this foundation.

Trust as the cornerstone of healthcare

Trust forms the basis of every relationship, also in healthcare. Increasing trust strengthens the professional relationship; when it decreases, the bond is under pressure. In the latter case, if no recovery is possible, the relationship can and should (ideally) be ended, for the safety of both persons. In modern healthcare, technology can play a crucial role in strengthening this bond of trust and the networks that form around it.

Technical requirements for the doctor-client relationship

Technology offers unprecedented possibilities to optimize the match between doctor and client. This is of inestimable value, since doctors spend a significant part of their time building — and unfortunately also restoring — trust. This as a result of, for example, unrealistic expectations of the client, negative experiences from the past or increasing workload in healthcare.

By deploying advanced technology, doctor and client can objectively monitor their relationship in terms of quality and strength. Consider deploying AI applications that can map the mutual expectations, emotions and experiences of doctor and client in physical and digital contacts with each other. This offers the possibility to detect potential problems at an early stage, apply targeted interventions to strengthen the relationship and better align care with individual needs with the aim of improving health on the basis of a network that collaborates from trust and on the basis of expertise and experience. The narrative that can be captured from this can function as a digital twin, which is further fed with the most reliable health-determining data interpreted in context.

Availability of data from the European Health Data Space therefore also depends on fundamental ICT architecture that meets principles derived from these core value(s). Crucial in this development are, for example, technical applications for reversible consent by the citizen and by his or her trusted doctor on data. From the relationship between doctor and client, after all, a natural bond of trust can be organized on the availability of data, and thus also the deployment that they both determine.

Organizing from the “why” of healthcare: Hippocratic Oath

Excellence in organizations requires a balanced development of technological capabilities and value-driven approach. A one-sided focus on digitization or values falls short for sustainable care innovation (see figure 3, Value Model).

Smart humanity: unraveling complex health mechanisms

By structuring organizations around professional values in the health ecosystem, integral insight arises from individual, both at a personal level and ecosystem-related data, which at an aggregated level determines health. This makes it possible to define and understand health as a concept better. Although complex, knowledge about health principles comes within reach. By deploying technology from an individual and ecosystem perspective, we can unravel complex mechanisms with advanced computing power — the essence of Smart Humanity.

Key points
■ The current digital space for health is outdated and not effective. It is mainly focused on administrative and financial tasks and the organization, while at the personal level between doctor and client health is determined and studied.
■ There is no good control over health data, whereby more than eighty percent of the health-determining data lies outside clinical practice. This leads to fragmented knowledge and a lack of overall insight for both doctors and clients, and ultimately society.
■ There is an urgent need for a new digital space for health that places the professional value of the doctor and relationship with the client at the center.
■ This new digital space for health must promote cross-sector collaboration, be based on mutual trust, be built organically from one-to-one in a flexible network and transparency, and make innovation possible without endangering health.

Although this contribution often discusses the doctor-client relationship, the principles and insights also apply to the relationship between other healthcare professionals and their clients.

Software validation and vibes: are we still “in control”?

The development and validation of software in healthcare is a complex process that is becoming increasingly important, especially with the arrival of the MDR (Medical Device Regulation) and the “covenant for the safe application of medical technology”. Recently, the “Guideline Validation of Software as a Medical Aid” was published to help doctors validate software after purchase up to and including putting it into use. Together with Paul, my colleague from the working group that drew up this guideline, I look back on the process and where we stand now.

At the time, I put together a panel of doctors myself and, together with them, dove into the topic on the basis of literature and engaged expertise on digital strategy. Besides valuable insights for the working group, open questions emerged here. For example: how important is clinical expertise in software development?

Our outdated digital structures often do not deliver sustainable, safe or reliable data for validation, which means that data curation remains intensive and costly. How do we ensure continuous updates of prediction models with prospectively collected data? How do we safeguard interests in the collaboration between doctors and developers? And how do we maintain visibility of clinical risks? There remains much to explore outside the scope of this guideline.

Validation vacation doctors?

According to Paul, clinical work will more often have to be interrupted for software validation, a “validation vacation”. The guideline helps with this, but the pace of new software and updates makes it more complex. Even small adjustments in the EHR take hours to validate.

Paul remembers how he used to program every piece of code, so that he knew exactly how everything worked. Nowadays it is different. Instead of struggling for hours ourselves, we now take tools from digital libraries. You call up those tools and let them do the work, until it meets your wishes. This “vibe-coding” offers convenience: the AI agent solves problems quickly with access to worldwide solutions. But this convenience raises questions about control and reliability.

“Wappie-software” validation?

Paul compares trust in software to a “wappie message”: it looks logical, but somewhere there is a wrong turn in the reasoning. With software it is difficult to find such a hidden defect. Validation checks whether software works as expected, but more important is whether, in the event of deviations, software also warns you with an error message. In this way Paul himself discovered an error in a cytostatics dosage that the software did not notice. Tools from online libraries raise additional questions: have they been validated, by whom, and under which conditions?

False sense of control

The guideline suggests control over software validation, but in reality risks, build-up and defects are often unknown. This can lead to health risks without doctors being aware of them. Or worse: deliberately deployed software risks in the interest of a malicious individual or group!

According to Paul it is no different than before: you may still expect that the developer guarantees sound and safe products. And the same applies to doctors. They are the ones who must interpret where risks lie and when warnings are needed.

Exploring outside the scope is unavoidable!

The guideline emphasizes the importance of a broader view of the entire life cycle of software. Doctors must be involved integrally, in order to contribute their expertise—something that developers, policymakers, lawyers and other domain experts do not take responsibility for! Doctors must also ensure that legislation, frameworks, standards or norms continue to deliver added value for health.

Doctors will increasingly immerse themselves in relevant domains such as ICT, law and policy in order to provide crucial input. See it as an LLM prompt: the more specifically formulated, the more usable the answer. But also letting the LLM go at the right moment: an art, because you catch insights with it that you otherwise would never have come up with yourself. And let that be a piece of cake, because letting that connection be made with the patient is core business for the doctor!

References

1.
2. A Large Language Model (LLM) is an advanced AI model that is trained on enormous amounts of text to understand and generate human language. It can write texts, answer questions and conduct conversations based on context and patterns.

Gabriëlle Speijer is a radiation oncologist at Haga Hospital and founder of CatalyzIT. Paul de Wolf is a hospital pharmacist and Chief Pharmacy Information Officer at Haga Hospital.

Consultations are no longer what they used to be…

A few years ago, Jan was referred to me. Since then, we have stayed in regular contact and he occasionally receives radiotherapy treatment for his chronic condition. Jan consistently gives valuable feedback, which keeps me reflecting as a physician. “What helps me so much is that you look at the test results together with me and take away my worries based on what we see,” he says. “You connect my symptom to the image, which helps me look at it with different feelings. It’s as if you redefine my complaint, so I can move forward again.”

Jan (not his real name) independently looks up his medical results and data. “It’s nice that I have access now, but not everything can be found,” he tells me. “I still have to request things myself regularly, which is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. Sometimes it even costs me the last bit of strength I actually need to recover. Still, it has given me a lot—so I keep doing it.”

Jan remembers how, thanks to digital access, he discovered duplicate medication. “People often assume healthcare professionals always have the complete overview, but that’s a misconception. My information doesn’t automatically travel with me digitally over time and across the doctors treating me. As a result, everyone has to keep asking again which medication I use!”

Enriching the consultation

It is not realistic to expect that a digital archive—once set up for financial administration—will also optimally support the consultation. For Jan, it does make sense that digital infrastructure should enrich the consultation and facilitate a shared interpretation of his health situation. But that is exactly what is missing. “Isn’t it strange,” Jan says as he looks at my radiotherapy software, “that you can calculate everything down to the millimeter, but an up-to-date medication overview still isn’t a given?”

For Jan, the greatest value of digital access lies in strengthening contact with his doctor. “That personal contact remains indispensable, but it has changed. Because I can now inform myself better—through Google, social media, and nowadays AI search engines—I can move forward independently more often. That helps me at many moments when I used to need doctors.”

Low-threshold contact

When Jan gets stuck, he especially appreciates the ease of low-threshold contact with his doctor. “For me, the consultation is an evaluation moment to determine the course together. That helps me return quickly to normal life, or find the courage to start an intensive treatment—even if that interrupts a holiday or work. That way I consciously commit to the process and I can move forward again.”

Jan keeps a general record of what he notices about his health and discusses it during the consultation. Sometimes this leads to new insights, or it makes his doctor think—for example when a slight increase in blood results coincides with his own experience. “That brings clarity: sometimes my feeling is right, sometimes it isn’t. If my suspicion is correct, it builds confidence; if not, the doctor helps me understand it differently.”

For example, Jan once waited to start antibiotics until after our conversation. We discussed his care together, the risk of severe side effects, searched online, and used his small diary notes to support why starting immediately was advisable. Within minutes, Jan felt reassured and took the first dose.

Trust

Even with routine PET-CT scans, it gives Jan confidence to discuss his symptoms and experiences using the images and to look for possible explanations together. I also notice my work improves, because I share my reasoning out loud while being questioned in an original way. Besides, I genuinely enjoy my profession—so I like talking about it. While looking at the scan, we discuss options, record a preliminary diagnosis, and plan the next steps. Certainty is rare, but the goal is to create calm and help Jan feel as healthy as possible in his situation.

Still, Jan and I observe that basic but crucial technology—technology that sustainably supports connectivity between patient and healthcare professional, and directly retains information from that relationship—still seems less attractive to developers and investors than “spectacular” applications. Think of AI-washing solutions such as chatbots promising to provide diagnoses, or algorithms promising to detect diseases. While it is precisely those less “attractive” applications that are so important in supporting both healthcare professional and patient throughout providing and receiving care.

SoMe? Social Media & Youth health. So, me!

In recent months more and more reports have appeared about the dangers of Social Media. Worldwide, several countries are making far-reaching choices in this regard. Norway is considering a ban for children up to the age of 15. The Australian parliament recently agreed to a ban for youths up to 16 years of age. In the Netherlands, too, the discussion about the use of social media is gathering momentum.

The question on many people’s minds is whether we in the Netherlands should also go as far as Australia or Norway. Or are there other solutions? How does social media affect young people? What is the impact in a negative and positive sense? We would like to discuss this with each other. We will do this at a session at the ICT&health World Conference 2025.

What will we highlight in this session?

The use of social media by young people can have negative effects. The health of our children and young people, who themselves do not always experience limitations in their use (and if they do the use is difficult to reduce), suffers. The problems that are identified are significant. Think of vision problems due to frequent and long stares at a monitor on a small screen, psychological problems such as addictive behavior, depression, low or distorted self-esteem, bullying and exclusion. And those are just the measurable and noticeable effects.

What can be expected in the long term? What effects will we still be able to reap as by-products? And if those are going to be there in x years or so, are we still thinking about the influence on this from the Socials? In addition, more and more noises are being ventilated that, because of the algorithms and revenue models attached to Social Media and because of advancing and rapid digital developments, it is no longer possible for the average adult to follow or control it.

On the other hand, there are also arguments in favor of using Social Media. The reported benefits of social media use among young people are that they learn more quickly and easily to make (online) connections with their peers. In this, they do not feel limited to their own neighborhood, area or bubble, but make global connections faster.

The frequent use of digital devices and applications teaches this generation the digital skills essential for the future, the so-called 21st century skills. They are digital natives; they do not know a world without digital tools. In the future, they will increasingly need to be able to relate to this, to hold their own. Young people learn to present themselves through social media, they can showcase their skills. That can give a boost in self-confidence. From that perspective, allowing Social Media would be natural.

From a young person’s point of view, the message is, “Through social media, we push each other to do things you wouldn’t otherwise be comfortable doing (weird dances, vaping, etc.). As a result, we are not ourselves; fortunately, sometimes our environment sees that. It even takes a detox in some cases to get back to somewhat normal use of phones and social media.”

Responsible use

As usually, the solution, the best way to deal with this, probably lies in a little of both. Awareness and choice make the difference and lead to more responsible use of social media. But what then is that responsible use? And can our children and young people already do this for themselves? Is their brain already developed enough and their self-reflection? From what age is that more or less present in young people? And where can support be given?

Support systems can certainly help in this, such as adults, the parents and family, the school and teachers. Can we do that with enough power and strength, given the algorithms with which the BIG Tech companies know how to engage our children and young people and the huge interests they have in keeping it that way? Do we ourselves have enough knowledge to guard against this? But it is mainly in young people themselves, which starts with awareness and making choices in the use of social media. Are there other ways to represent the interests of young people in this, together with them?

Join us in a dialogue about this and come to the session on this topic on January 29 at the ICT&health World Conference 2025.

Source: ICT&health (article by Gabrielle Speijer).

The healthcare professional determines the possibilities of technological applications!

In recent years, I have been amazed that we have not used the enormous amount of technological possibilities that came into my field of radiotherapy more and better. That we still do not succeed in learning from every treatment and patient (quickly). What enormous knowledge would that lead to for doctor and patient! Healthcare professionals must take more of the lead in developing technological applications in practice: only we know what added value is and how it can enrich the Hippocratic Oath!

I therefore decided to educate myself completely outside my field: at conferences, online communities, courses, etc. Every moment of free time went into that in recent years. Besides the fact that it was incredibly interesting and fun, I also learned time and again to approach things differently. And that in turn helped to learn from every consultation with my patients and to define more sharply where I now really make the difference as a doctor.

That means truly being there for the other person, truly listening, “reading” the other person and taking them seriously: during consultations and during the contact between consultations. Digitally (video calling, chatting), by phone, physically. In fact, all of that may be called a consultation, because the profession ultimately revolves around interpreting things well together: the so-called “narrative”. And you build that up together by looking well, listening, doing interventions at the right moment, steering and coaching: all aimed at getting someone out the door healthier, better and with fewer worries.

Confidentiality is a must

To make that difference as a doctor, confidentiality between me and patients is a must. As a patient you are already vulnerable. In a consultation you literally expose yourself physically, but also in terms of your inner world. That is why it is crucial that this information remains confidential and is made available based on both of our assessments. Because you only get a good picture of what is sensitive for the other person by checking well with the patient. And what we as doctors have a good view of is how the health-related data can or cannot be used, whether it really serves health improvement.

Yet there is no possibility at this moment to take on this important task. What do I mean by this “possibility”? That we are technically facilitated to have the information and the data available together with our patient in order to interpret well together and determine where it can and may be used. And this must not be a snapshot, but must be managed continuously, although not all doctors or patients will be continuously busy with this.

At the moment, the framework to steer this is completely missing. A few consequences:

· Tightening of control on laws and regulations that quite often leads to misunderstanding among people in the field, where incorrect interpretations even lead to risky medical situations, such as: “unfortunately I cannot provide you with the information about your patient, because it is not allowed by the GDPR.”
· Shadow practices in which data are offered for sale for a variable amount without the knowledge of doctor and patient, as a necessary evil to make innovation possible and to develop services for the benefit of all of our health.

That is why I really wonder what our EU is planning with regard to that health data and the scope of the EHDS. If you want to properly allocate data use and management according to the frameworks derived from our democratic EU values, then we must think about a framework in which that consent on our health data is technically well arranged with those who carry the expertise and responsibility in this. I believe that the doctor and patient/client are these, preferably under the supervision of experts from relevant domains (such as, but not only: ICT specialists, ethicists, behavioral experts, politicians, insurers).

What I hope for in 2025 is that those who agree with me and can make European policy will enter into conversation with me about this. The solution is within reach. Technically everything is there, it is now a matter of ensuring that mindset and collaboration are guided to work out the first framework together: one that places confidential collaboration on health between doctor and patient at the center. From there it can grow organically.

Source: ICT&health magazine, Data Driven Doctor (nr. 06/2024).

Her talk was certainly not an attack on all the good technology already out there. She mentioned several examples of technological developments in her own field (radiotherapy) to enable increasingly targeted radiation. Speijer: “These developments are coming at us like a tsunami, overtaking each other left and right. The number of apps you can install and uninstall on your smartphone is enormous. But technology that supports the patient and his/her supporters and professionals throughout the healthcare chain in interpreting and communicating about the patients’ health situation is lacking. As is the use of his/her data for this purpose,” said the inspired CatalyzIT entrepreneur.

No issue

During her highly interactive presentation, Speijer made a warm plea for the abolition of repeatedly asking patients for permission to use their data.  Speijer: ‘In a relationship of trust, the basis of cooperation and contact between patient and doctor, this is not an issue. There must be 100% certainty that those involved (designated by the treating physician and patient together) use the data primarily for profit of the patient’s health.’

Digital support

‘Anno 2023, a general practitioner will still receive (physical) letters after completing treatments. In the most ideal situation, patients will find these in their patient portal. And often the treating physician must also request information from other specialties to get a complete picture.

A different digital form of communication, for example via a “chat room” in which data is directly turned into added value, can offer a solution here. This is an approachable and simple way of communicating, facilitated by technology, that can not only enhance communication between patients and their teams, but also enable healthcare professionals to use their expertise in the best possible way. Thus, connective digital communication can be the ultimate complement to the physical consultation. The digital encounters or alignments with all relevant parties at the right time also reduce the number of checkups and protocol encounters, thus relieving both the patient and the healthcare professional.

Complete picture

It is essential that all relevant parties: the patient and the team around the patient, are involved and can interpret and share information and expertise with each other, so that a shared and complete view of the health situation emerges. In addition to sharing a new finding, result or treatment step, it is also possible (and especially logical) to inquire how the patient is doing and if there are any questions. This is hugely important, as I experience in my practice that the sooner a patient has a grip on their health situation and feels supported by their practitioners, the better the health outcome.

Strengthen

CatalyzIT is currently working with several parties on connective technology. The healthcare company also lectures and provides training in various areas from technology to mindset, all aimed at strengthening the connection between doctor and patient. If you are interested, please contact us.