Do your favourite companies’ values reflect your own? It’s increasingly easier to find out. Good Guide has an awesome new application that lets you view the political contributions of major US corporations. Transparency rules the day.
Retail Sales Companies
I recently had an opportunity to receive honest and explicit feedback from a patient I encountered in the clinical setting. For confidentiality purposes I won’t discuss the details of the encounter, but I highly doubt that I will ever stumble into such a unique and serendipitous situation again. It was enriching, and left me wanting more.
Given that the information we provide in genetic counselling sessions is complex and often anxiety provoking, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that our patients have a lot to say, be it good or bad.
In training, genetic counselling students receive a lot of criticism from their clinical supervisors, teachers and program director. However, as far as I am aware, there is no system in place to elicit direct feedback from patients.
So why not provide a section on your clinic website where a patient can send an anonymous comment? Or why not keep a comment box in your clinic waiting room? As I see it, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Scania Price, designer of the “Always in Beta” t-shirt defines the term as:
Always testing.
Always pushing.
Always in development.
Never, ever standing still.
The applicability of this mantra to the field of genetics is too great to ignore. With countless other industries embracing the notion of “always in beta,” why shouldn’t we? And what better way to do this, than go to the source– the patients themselves.
———-
The concept of patient feedback has been explored more broadly for the medical community:
———-
If you know of any other examples, please comment below. Has anyone been asked to provide feedback for their healthcare provider? Any experiences with a genetic counsellor you’d like to share?
Just some ideas from around the web that have stuck with me lately. Firstly, Faris and Seth share two great reasons why people are better than companies at social media:
1. We’re Nicer. If you want to operate in social media, you have to act socially. Herein lies the problem. Companies are not social. Companies are commercial. They have explicitly commercial objectives… This is possibly why companies find it so hard to act socially and, by extension, in social media. They have to act without any thought to immediate financial return.
2. We’re Faster. It’s hard for big companies (and agencies) to compete with the speed of inspired individuals. It’s hard to be nimble. It’s scary to launch and learn. It takes a lot of constant monitoring and hands on responding.
—-
Next, a USA Today interview with Matt Berninger of The National reminds me of the inspiration in the everyday:
Songs about the working world have made The National big enough that the band no longer needs day jobs. “That camaraderie at the office — talking at the water cooler, going to lunch — I miss that,” Berninger admits. He does think about going back to work, but fleetingly. “Realistically, would I set my alarm, go to the office and prepare for a presentation for clients? But I do freelance design work, and that takes my brain out of the rock-band universe. It will hurt us if we lose touch with who we were…
“Average life is rich with content”.
Hear, hear. This guy agrees, Matt (you might know him from his Chronicles):
With the upcoming US election, I can’t help but watch and think about how the outcome might affect genetic policy.
I first heard of Barack Obama in the fall of 2006, when his proposed “Personalized Medicine Act” came up in a class discussion. Among other things, this bill (which has been revised and is now called the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007) states that realizing the promise of personalized medicine requires:
Needless to say, this bill (and the man behind it) easily appeals to the scientific community, and specifically the genetics community. A couple of weeks ago, Obama revealed an impressive list of scientific advisers which has only served to increase the scientific community’s support for the presidential candidate.
The addition of Sarah Palin to the republican bill provides a very different, and troubling layer to their scientific platform- namely her support for the inclusion of creationism in science classes. With genetics being the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, what would a republican win mean for genomics research funding and the “genomics workforce”?
This question is made more interesting when you consider her youngest son’s Down Syndrome diagnosis. If it is true that the diagnosis was made prenatally, then it is conceivable that Palin would have interacted with genetics during her pregnancy, and possibly even met with a genetic counselor. [Out of curiosity I searched the National Society of Genetic Counselor's website to find a prenatal genetic counselor in or around Anchorage, Alaska; there are none listed.] If not prenatally, it is likely that her son would have been evaluated by a geneticist within the first few months of life.
Palin has committed to advocating on behalf of children with special needs, an important and honorable task. However, the special needs community is intimitely tied to the genetics community through clinical care, research and even advocacy work. I can’t help but imagine that policy decisions made within the context of a creationist ideology would only serve to undermine the genetics/genomics community and in turn, do a great disservice to the people Palin so fervently promises to help.
So we won a Canadian Comedy Award for Sure Lock on Friday night. The success of this thing continues to boggle my mind. A huge thanks to all who voted! I’ll update with photos when I get my hands on them.
In other web video news, since I commented on Trumpets it’s been viewed a whopping 238,000 times and received 900+ comments. Now Mindy brings this ridiculous Disco mash-up version to our attention:
Wow. I’m assuming this is a consumer remix and not Fallon’s work. I think it’s a win for the National Confectionery either way.
Malkmus dedicated, “We Can’t Help You,” to Jose Calderon of the Toronto Raptors, and then commented that he is worried about the Jermaine O’Neal trade. It is well known that Malkmus is an avid sports fan. He even did a fantasy baseball preview for eMusic. But I’ve never heard sports talk during a rock concert before. Awesome.
Two things I love: 1) Sports 2) New Music
A decade ago these interests were not friends. If you liked one, you’d better run from the other. The stereotypes were set: Jock bullies band nerd. Scenester mocks meathead (probably not to his face… in lyric perhaps).
But, the web, and more specifically the playlist, have changed things. You no longer have to choose groups like you’re in grade school. Music is more accessible and sharable than ever before – so new groups are exposed to new sounds outside the old mainstream. It’s commonplace to hear kids respond to the question “what sort of music do you like?” with the very descriptive response “everything”. Varied interests aren’t just accepted now, they’re encouraged.
So within the past few years indie music hit the masses. And, big surprise, the masses like sports! Now, after a brief period of fear, resentment and confusion, it seems it’s finally okay to declare dual love for indie and sporting worlds. Here’s a collection of proof:
It should be noted, while historically rivaled, indie and jock cultures do share some common roots. Take sneakers. Chuck Taylor was a baller long before his kicks were on Bowery. Now, you’ll also find Stan Smith, Rod Laver, Fred Perry, Renee Lacoste and even Air Jordan at rock shows (still waiting on Ewing). On the flip side, you might hear TVOTR next time you’re at MSG.
It’s the dawning of Creative Recreation…
