Harlan Krumholz

We're going there.

But there are issues which we have to solve, aren't we?

In a research study, we're de-anonymising patients.

We're doing all of the ethics and all of that's coming into it.

And then we get to clinical practice and we go, can we do this in real time?

There are barriers.

And so we've got to remove all of them barriers to being able to put this information in and then supply it back in a secure way that people can use for clinical practice.

Yeah, and I think what we have to accept is when you step over the threshold of the hospital, there are uncertainties that mean you should be participating in research.

It's almost unethical not to be doing it.

That's my point.

And therefore, if we get rid of these barriers.

People realise that healthcare is not just about developing vaccines and drug trials.

This piece of information, natural history, could just be as important as being able to triage people into the right places, be able to use our resources wisely and efficiently, know when we need to admit somebody to a critical care unit, but also knowing when we can send them home.

If we do that well, we'll have a much more efficient health care system and we won't get overwhelmed because we're waiting for the research paper to come out and help us out.

Yeah, I thought there were lots of interesting points I'm aware of, just not the sort of big research.

Right down to students, to PhD projects, to masters, there's a whole swathe of research on hold.

And I think that presents difficulties for people.

But I was also interested in this issue of rapidity and where do you put your evidence to have the most impact?

And I think there are interesting issues that are going to come out of this in terms of how do you manage the information flow?

And so, for instance, our work, we've really tried to help many of the media and the journalists understand what's happening, particularly with issues like the death data, but the evidence.