Project Baseline: Second Annual Visit
You know what these items are? The devices provided to me during my very first Project Baseline visit in August 2017 when I was so eager to participate as patient #12 in Google/Verily’s Project Baseline clinical trial. I was so optimistic about the opportunities for general health whereby data could be analyzed to identify early indicators of illness and disease.
I am no longer that wide-eyed, gullible participant and digital health investor.
As I’ve written the past, Google (Verily) is really missing out on the opportunity and isn’t even following good clinical trial management practices. I have lost all confidence in their ability to effectively achieve the Project Baseline objectives. Disappointing, really. Will Google’s acquisition of Fitbit help with their objectives? Doubtful.
2019: Second Annual Visit
I rescheduled my appointment from August to September and the scheduling system sent me reminders with the address and the location which was a step up from the previous year.
I was greeted by friendly folks at Stanford’s front desk, as usual, and was quickly ushered into one of the rooms by Christina who seemed to have been briefed about my previous experiences. Christina was with me throughout the 4 hour visit.
The tone of the visit changed completely when Sumana came in to get her copy of Piloting Your Life signed and meet in person. We’d spoken on the phone sometime during the year since my last visit, and it was a joy to connect with her and get this great photo!
The visit was pretty much the same as the previous annual visit. They drew blood, swabbed my ears, nose and mouth, took saliva and urine samples, hooked me up for an EKG (new this year), and had me do some exercises (strength, flexibility, motion, balance).
The same gal as the previous two years did the eye exam and I avoided all conversation with her. As I’ve said before, she has no business being a part of this study. She is unable to give the simplest of directions or answer the most basic of questions, not to mention the misinformation she’s provided in previous years. And, last year, I think she downright lied to cover her own ass.
I wrapped up my visit with lunch in the sun with my friend Donna who works for Stanford on the Project Baseline trial.
A week or two later, I received the results of my blood tests and really love and appreciate this. I know this was a tricky thing for Verily because it’s not standard practice but they managed to work it out within the trial design and with the FDA (I am assuming).
I wonder, though, if some of the test results would be more useful if I was told to fast prior to the blood tests. That reminds me, I need to share the results with my doctor.
My Complaints and Criticisms (and Opportunities for Improvement)
— Their data gathering system and processes are still archaic. What decent drug company or medical device company uses Google Forms to capture patient intake data? I put in more sophisticated systems nearly 20 years ago in the biotech companies I worked with. Ridiculous.
— By relying on the nurses or trained staff to manually enter data rather than selecting from predefined lists (tied to standard databases with standard medical, drug, and therapy terminology) they risk inconsistent and unreliable data entry. How can this data possibly be scrubbed well enough to be reliable enough to be analyzed as part of a clinical trial to draw relevant healthcare, disease, and illness related conclusions? I just don’t get it.
— During the first two visits, there was no consideration for me having female parts. There were no questions about my period, no pap smear, no breast exam, nothing that was specifically female which led me to conclude that, as with a lot of researchers, they simply see females as a standard deviation away from males and /or view research around female related things as is unimportant. This is absolutely unacceptable and discounts the value of the trial overall.
— They don’t follow up on patient adherence on the use of the devices. I stopped wearing my watch sometime earlier in the year and have no idea if any of the sleep data was being transmitted by the sleep sensor. In September, after my visit, I removed it from my bed and unplugged the transmission device just to see if anyone would notice. No one has or no one cares. This is not good clinical trial management and does not adhere to clinical trial management best practices.
— Since they screwed up two years in a row on the poopsicle, I refused to even try this year. There had been some discussion about me and the issues and they were expecting me to rebel. The lovely gals at Stanford didn’t offer up any resistance to my resistance. It’s unfortunate because I think the gut biome provides valuable insight into our health.
— They abandoned the lung / breathing tests. When I asked why, I was told Google/Verily decided not to fund it any longer. This signaled two things to me. First, they didn’t think through their trial design very well to begin with. And secondly, that they are looking for ways to reduce budget and overhead.
I’ve stopped giving feedback to folks at Stanford or at Verily. It doesn’t seem to make a difference. I’ve also stopped offering my assistance despite having experience with technology in life sciences for over 20 years and my experience as a digital health investor. They need help.
I really want to see data and technology flip healthcare on its head.
Alas, this continues to be yet another example of how the arrogance of big tech in healthcare and life sciences contributes to the waste opportunities and resources within healthcare. Sigh.
