In healthcare systems worldwide, there is growing interest in medical technologies (MedTech) that could close the gap between disease burden and the provision of care. But how many of us—as patients—have seen these tools in practice and felt the benefit?
One 2025 report found that 18% of patients wait a week or more to see a general practitioner, while more than half wait over a month for a specialist appointment. In the United Kingdom and Canada, 1 in 10 patients wait over 12 months to see a specialist.
The longer a patient waits to be seen, the worse their outcome may be.
Waiting times are just one measure of healthcare system performance: patient outcomes, quality of care, and more must all be evaluated. While the same report found that several indicators have improved in recent years, the authors also noted that healthcare systems must deliver better outcomes amid increased demand.
Novel technologies could help providers deliver on this, but a disconnect is emerging between what healthcare systems could achieve and what they are actually providing.
Dr. Tristan Derry, medical doctor and co-founder of Orbion Connect, has seen this mismatch firsthand. “When I first entered the health tech space, I was going to conferences, demo days, and so on. I was seeing new technology and software that aimed to streamline workflows or improve outcomes for patients—it was all super exciting.”
“Then, I would go to the hospital, and none of these innovations were there,” he continued. “We were still using really archaic systems, devices, and products that seemed way further behind compared to what is out there at the moment.”
This realization prompted Derry to co-found Orbion Connect, an AI-driven platform that helps innovators find the expertise they need to build MedTech solutions. In a conversation with Technology Networks, Derry shared why expert insight is key to creating technologies that reach the clinic.
You were motivated to found Orbion Connect after observing challenges with solution adoption within the NHS. Is this challenge seen globally, and are there any examples of healthcare systems that demonstrate particularly effective adoption of solutions?
Tristan Derry, MD (TD):
I think it is a problem we see across other ecosystems as well. It’s prominent in the United Kingdom, in terms of slow adoption, but it’s also observed in other European countries and in the states. The NHS looks like one buyer but behaves like hundreds, because every trust makes its own decision, from its own budget, on its own timeline.
Obviously, the States have a different model in that it’s a private healthcare system; although they have to go through a lot of the same regulatory hurdles, once you get beyond that, selling your product is different. I wouldn’t say easier because it definitely still takes a lot of effort, but you don’t have to sell to trusts, for example, you can sell to individual hospitals.
Looking at Europe, I came across an interesting example of how they’ve tried to overcome this. In France, they put together an early funding model in 2023; once you’ve got approval and recognition of what you’re doing, and it’s been validated, they give you one year to essentially test your product. They fund it to a certain extent, which allows you to gather evidence and data, supporting your innovation and potentially taking you towards more permanent reimbursement from the government.
I thought it was a nice way of encouraging early-stage companies to try and get their foot in the door, to test these products with patients and see if it has a positive outcome. The evidence for this is still limited; it’s only a few years old, but it’s an interesting idea.
The United Kingdom has put together the National Health Tech Access Programme (NHAP), which NICE announced in February 2026.
NHAP
Under the program, technologies that are high-impact, clinically suitable, and cost-effective will be reimbursed and made available across the NHS. The first technologies selected are capsule sponge tests for detecting oesophageal cancer and AI tools that analyze tissue sample images to help identify prostate and breast cancer.
Essentially, the way NICE already appraises medicines for NHS funding is now being extended to health technologies and devices, working alongside the MHRA, which still handles regulatory approval. They are running a few trials with different innovations, and it will be interesting to see where that goes.
A national approval gives you permission to sell, but it doesn’t oblige anyone to buy.
So, the simple answer: yes, this challenge is seen in other countries as well.
IH:
What are some of the most exciting solutions you have seen in the health tech space?
TD:
We’re seeing so many more innovations being built now, and a lot of them are being built from problems experienced firsthand.
“New tools are enabling people to spin out solutions, even if it’s just a prototype. That’s exciting to see, because previously we were seeing founders from more commercial or engineering backgrounds building these solutions.” — Dr. Tristan Derry.
At the moment, the most prominent solution is ambient voice technology. Essentially, it’s usually a device or a software that sits in the background of consultations and takes notes. This technology has seen huge growth because it’s solving a massive problem that clinicians face. Every time I see a patient, I have to sit for a few minutes afterward, typing up notes, remembering everything that they said, and writing it down accurately. Holding onto that knowledge when you’re seeing multiple patients can be quite difficult.
From clinicians, we’re seeing really positive feedback on those sorts of technologies. The evidence on whether it saves time and money is still to be determined, but it’s definitely been the most prominent technology in the last few years.
IH:
How can engaging clinicians early in the development process help MedTech startups build solutions that are not only clinically valuable but also aligned with healthcare environments?
TD:
The biggest frustration in creating solutions is spending a bunch of money and time solving the wrong problem. When you involve a clinician early enough, they can help to guide product development based on what the actual problem that you’re solving should be. Let’s say you want to work within the diabetes space. What part of that management pathway are you targeting, and which frustrations faced by either patients or clinicians are you trying to solve?
Physician input is really useful early on.
A second part of it is that, for some device classifications, you have to go through a design usability phase. This has to be done on a product that’s finished or close to finished. If you are involving clinicians or users for the first time at this late stage, you only get that feedback then. You might have to rebuild, redesign, and implement that feedback just to do the same thing again.
If you can understand from the clinician’s perspective how they would use your tool and how they would see it implemented in a hospital, it’s just invaluable. There are so many clinicians who are interested in the health tech space, who want to contribute, and reaching those people is crucial to developing any device or software.
Additionally, getting a clinician to really champion your product can generate huge growth. If you get a consultant urologist to back your innovation within the urology space, they’ve got connections, they’ve got a network, they understand the specialty and the complaints and problems that these clinicians face. They know how that new device or software could improve things. Having clinicians on your team adds credibility and enables faster distribution through word-of-mouth.
IH:
On the regulatory side, what requirements or considerations do early-stage MedTech companies most frequently overlook, and what impact does this have on development and adoption?
TD:
Again, it goes back to a lot of time lost—that’s sort of the headline. Regulations are sometimes seen in the wrong light. I’m not a regulatory expert; I’ve just seen companies go through it, and I’ve worked with regulatory agencies supporting them. Sometimes I think people see it as something they need to sidestep, dodge, or get around.
“Regulators are there for a reason. They’re there because, beyond any of these innovations, the most important thing is patient safety, and anything that jeopardizes that needs to be flagged.” — Dr. Tristan Derry.
That said, understanding the regulatory space that you’re in from an early stage saves so much time later down the line. What I mean by this is understanding how you can adjust your product so that it fits into a category of regulations that are simpler to navigate or have a shorter time frame.
It’s important to think: this is the problem we want to solve, but with the solution we have, how can we adjust it slightly so that it’s less invasive or has less of a direct impact on the management of patients but perhaps focuses more on advising clinicians. It’s small adjustments that can have really big implications from a regulatory point of view.
Secondly, many of these regulatory companies have told me that people just don’t know what they need. They know what they’re building, but they don’t know what it takes to get it across the finish line. We’ve seen huge benefit for founders from scheduling a call with regulatory experts. Innovators can explain their product, what they are trying to build, and receive initial guidance. Getting a head start puts you in a good place from the get-go and allows you to cut back on some of the time that it usually takes.
Many of these regulatory cycles can take up to 18 months, and if you get it wrong from the start, you have to begin again. Additionally, cost comes into play; regulations are expensive.
Finally, before a product can be adopted, there are some core regulatory steps that it needs to pass. For example, all products move through clinical safety assessments. It used to be optional to have a clinical safety officer, but they’ve just made it mandatory, which is great. It means that clinicians who understand the space and have a qualification in checking the safety of these products are involved earlier. I’d recommend people to involve a clinical safety officer early, so that they are thinking along the right lines from the start.
IH:
If you had to identify three ingredients that are most important for a MedTech startup’s long-term success, what would they be, and why?
TD:
It’s a difficult one to boil down to three.
Number one, think early on about who you’re going to sell to eventually. Are you going to sell into a healthcare system, like the NHS? Are you going to sell directly to you patients or take more of a business-to-business model? In healthcare, the person who benefits and the person who pays are rarely the same. That can really influence your roadmap.
Next, it sounds like generic advice, but involving key users early and getting feedback is really important. Just keep iterating the product. Get clinicians in early, get them to try your product and bounce back some ideas. If you’re selling directly to patients, find groups or communities of patients living with those diseases and speak to them. Understand what their pain points are and what they want solved. And speak to investors; you need to know whether they would even consider funding your innovation.
Lastly, understand the regulatory space that you’re in from the start, which can differ depending on the innovation. For example, the regulatory bit can be the easier bit if you’re a class one device. The hard part sits after that approval; you need NHS assurance, your clinical safety standards, information governance, and a plan for integrating with electronic record systems. If you have a more invasive device, then the harder part comes before the approval process, where you’re going through clinical trials and so on.
“I want to encourage people to keep innovating. My co-founder and I set out to bring more innovation into hospitals sooner and improve patient care.” — Dr. Tristan Derry.
A key way to do that is to speak with people who have done these processes hundreds of times. They can help you get innovation in front of patients, and that’s what we set out to do.
Source link
