At the d. School I co-teach design thinking courses that focus on healthcare issues. I am particularly interested in maternal and infant healthcare, healthcare equity and how physicians are trained. I am fortunate to have developed relationships with attending physicians, nurses, lactation consultants and occupational therapists through my research and design work at Stanford’s Pediatric Department.
RedesigningHealthcare.org is a website that captures my experience bringing challenging medical scenarios to d. School classes. The medical simulations I design with my clinical co-instructors are challenging because they are always more than medical. Psychological, social and cultural issues are all part of healthcare. No matter what the problems we encounter, they live within an ecosystem that cannot be ignored. This is where human-centered design can help: interdisciplinary students look at old problems with new eyes–eyes that are typically immersed in subjects such as engineering, chemistry, computer science, anthropology, business and others. By bringing their curiosity and naïveté to the medical space, students are able to identify needs and develop innovative solutions.
While innovation may improve a specific procedure or work-flow, the effect of such a change may radiate out to the greater system. In our classes students design a product, system or service, and then expand their “story out” by communicating how their solution fits within the current environment. In addition, they are asked to identify barriers that might hinder adoption. Recognition of emotional drivers may lead to faster adoption of new ideas. During simulations and clinician interviews students are encouraged to probe the question, “What may be the emotional consequences and/or casualties of subpar design?” Besides looking for fundamental engineering and human factors problems in existing equipment, workflows or procedures, students study how these elements are affecting team dynamics, contributing to, or detracting from a clinician’s confidence, saving or wasting precious time.
The novelty of Redesign Healthcare classes lies in the effort that goes into preparing the learning environment. Designing these classes is a bit like creating a theater production while allowing the spectators to talk to the actors, set designers and orchestra throughout the performance. I look at my job as a convener of people. Everything from the scenarios we highlight in simulations, to the focus groups we organize to the field trips we schedule requires extensive planning, the ability to anticipate the needs of others, and a high level of sensitivity and gratitude to those that agree to participate. As an aspiring consummate host, my goal is to create a purposeful, appropriate setting for the work at hand. My teaching goals are always the same: to cultivate empathy with one’s users and classmates, to experiment without fear, to interrogate assumed truths and to trust that the methods we teach will guide the way.
I’m excited to share that 2019 brings a new opportunity to teach a two-quarter class at the d. School. I have selected a topic that needs urgent attention: pediatric feeding challenges. With a team of six clinicians, the founder of Feeding Matters and several visiting experts in areas such as storytelling, business strategy and intellectual property, we will embark on studying what happens when breastfeeding is not possible in the labor and delivery unit after birth, NICU feeding practices, and feeding difficulties at home for term, discharged preterm and complex care children. The reality of developing such a class requires funding and support from an outside stakeholder which has been secured by Lansinoh Laboratories. Innovations that have market promise may be acquired by Lansinoh. I am also applying for a “faculty grant” through VentureWell.org. The faculty grant would cover all student expenses related to utilizing Stanford’s Product Realization Lab, material costs for model-making and consultant costs for bench testing, CAD or programming. Since our courses are open to all study disciplines at Stanford, I don’t expect everyone to be comfortable using a lathe or able to learn CAD in a few weeks. We offer the tools and training, but some skills may be out of the scope of a student’s comfort zone. I am a firm believer that the first two phases of design thinking are the most critical: Understand (Developing Empathy) and Define (Identifying the problem/s). Low resolution prototype creation is the most important skill to have. High resolution prototyping can ultimately be hired out and managed.
For us, a successful course would mean seeing all 21 students go through the design thinking process with patience, joy and trust. We want the students to walk away with an understanding of a complex healthcare issue, increase their ability to comfortably navigate ambiguity, develop confidence in the model shop to create prototypes, and hone the ability take constructive feedback and translate it into new physical iterations. As the design instructor, I stress that learning this process (understand, define, ideate, prototype, test) is more important than the final product. Beyond our teaching goals, we hope that at least one student group from the class goes on to develop their device or system innovation through an incubator on or off campus, or with Lansinoh’s guidance.