Challenge: Testing Innovative Technologies at the New Children’s Hospital

Focus Area: Health & Wellbeing

Forum Virium Helsinki announces the opening of a call for the second round of innovative pilots as part of the FinEst Twins project. The health & wellbeing challenge of the programme is Testing innovative technologies at the New Children’s Hospital to enhance pediatric care.

Pilot host: The New Children’s Hospital Foundation & Helsinki University Hospital (HUS)

The New Children’s Hospital in Helsinki is committed to advancing pediatric healthcare through innovative solutions. This initiative is crucial for several reasons:

1. Improving patient outcomes: Advanced diagnostic tools and care technologies can lead to earlier detection, more accurate diagnoses, and more effective treatments for pediatric diseases.
2. Enhancing patient experience: Child-friendly technologies can reduce stress and anxiety associated with medical procedures, improving overall patient and family satisfaction.
3. Increasing efficiency: Innovative tools can streamline workflows, allowing healthcare providers to focus more on patient care and less on administrative tasks.
4. Advancing research: New technologies can provide valuable data for pediatric research, potentially leading to breakthroughs in understanding and treating childhood diseases.

Challenge description

We are seeking innovative tools and technologies that can significantly improve the diagnosis and care of pediatric diseases. The objective of the challenge is to significantly improve pediatric care quality, enhance patient experiences, and contribute to advancements in pediatric medicine at the New Children’s Hospital in Helsinki and beyond.

Proposals should preferably address one or more of the following areas:

• Non-invasive diagnostic methods
• Point-of-care testing solutions
• Remote monitoring technologies
• AI-assisted diagnostic tools
• Child-friendly treatment delivery systems
• Patient engagement and education platforms

Proposed solutions should be designed specifically for pediatric use or demonstrate clear adaptability to pediatric care settings. Evidence for the fitness to test in real life hospital settings is expected.

An expert panel will select two innovations for piloting, with a cash prize of €7,500. The money will be used for a product service trial (development project) at the New Children’s Hospital. 

The New Children’s Hospital also welcomes expressions of interest for non-paid piloting.  A maximum of 5 out 10 proposals invited to the live event will have an opportunity to pilot their solution in the New Children’s Hospital based on final evaluation. Two best solutions will receive the grant of 7,500€. 

Budget

15,000€ (VAT 0%) distributed evenly for two (2) best solutions (7,500€ and 7,500€).

Evaluation and selection process

Tenders for focus area health & wellbeing are submitted using this specific form. In addition to filling in the form, each Bidder can submit a maximum of four (4) other attachments supporting their tender. Please note that in this focus area it is mandatory to submit at least one (1) attachment. The proposal should include an attachment describing the solution and evidence for each criteria on how the criteria has been validated. A simple table listing how the solution meets the criteria will be sufficient. It is recommended to use this excel template (download the file locally, fill out and then attach it when submitting your tender). Please keep your answers to a maximum of 2000 characters. Missing attachment can lead to rejection of the proposal. In addition, it is recommended to include a PowerPoint presentation or PDF with a maximum of 10 slides highlighting the most important aspects of the solution and introducing the team members.

Forum Virium Helsinki, The FinEst Twins project’s experts and the selected members from each pilot host organisations will evaluate the tenders submitted by the deadline. Submitted proposals will be screened based on the focus area specific evaluation criteria and ten (10) best solutions exceeding the threshold of 16 points will be invited to a remote live event taking place on the week 15. After the online event, the jury can make a final decision based on the general evaluation criteria following the general evaluation process. All participants in the tender competition will be notified of the results. The procuring entity has the right to decide not to carry out the procurement, considering factors such as the total funding available or the quality of the tenders submitted. 

Order of precedence: 

1. The information provided on the form

2. The information presented in the attachments to the tender

3. The information provided in the potential online event

Materials and information provided outside the form, its attachments, or the online event will not be considered as part of the tender.

The order of evaluation

1. Initial screening of proposals for completeness and adherence to submission guidelines.
2. Technical review by a panel of experts in pediatric medicine, medical technology, and innovation.
3. Shortlisting of 10 top proposals exceeding the threshold of 16 points.
4. Inviting shortlisted proposals to a live event, where the clinical jury has a possibility to ask questions based on a presentation. Presentation should include the same information than the original proposal and additional information for clarification if needed.
5. Final selection based on the general criteria of the open call, as determined by the clinical jury after the live event.

Focus area specific evaluation criteria

Submitted proposals will be invited to a remote online event taking place on the week 15 after the call ends based on the following criteria: 

(Each criteria will be scored between 0-3 and the maximum scoring is 24 points. Please note that this will not be the final evaluation criteria.)

1. Innovation (0-3p):

Question: To what extent does your product or service represent a novel approach or offer a significant improvement over existing methods?

0: The solution is identical or nearly identical to existing methods.

1: The solution offers minor improvements or variations on existing methods.

2: The solution introduces a new approach with moderate potential for improvement.

3: The solution represents a groundbreaking approach with significant potential for improvement.

2. Clinical Relevance (0-3p):

Question: How does your product or service address a clear unmet need in pediatric care and demonstrate the potential to improve patient outcomes?

0: The proposal does not identify a clear clinical need or the link to improved outcomes is weak.

1: The proposal identifies a clinical need, but the potential for outcome improvement is not well-defined.

2: The proposal clearly identifies a clinical need and provides some evidence suggesting potential for outcome improvement.

3: The proposal strongly articulates a significant clinical need and provides compelling evidence for the potential to improve patient outcomes.

3. User-Friendliness (0-3p):

Question: How does your product or service incorporate the needs and perspectives of children, families, and healthcare providers in its design and implementation to ensure user-friendliness?

0: The solution appears difficult to use or understand for one or more of the target user groups.

1: The solution demonstrates some consideration for user needs, but usability may be limited.

2: The solution is generally user-friendly and incorporates feedback from target user groups.

3: The solution is exceptionally user-friendly, with a strong emphasis on accessibility and ease of use for all user groups.

4. Feasibility (0-3p):

Question: How feasible is the implementation of your product or service in a hospital setting, considering technical requirements, costs, and resource availability?

0: The proposal lacks a clear implementation plan or faces significant technical or economic barriers.

1: The proposal has an implementation plan but may encounter challenges related to technical feasibility or resource constraints.

2: The proposal presents a feasible implementation plan with a reasonable assessment of technical and economic considerations.

3: The proposal offers a highly feasible implementation plan with a strong understanding of the technical and economic landscape.

5. Scalability (0-3p):

Question: How scalable is your product or service? What is the potential for wider adoption and impact beyond the initial pilot or implementation site?

0: The solution appears limited to the initial context and offers little potential for scalability.

1: The proposal mentions scalability but lacks a clear plan for wider adoption.

2: The proposal outlines a potential pathway to scaling the solution with some consideration of the challenges involved.

3: The proposal presents a strong case for scalability with a detailed plan for wider adoption and impact.

6. Safety and Efficacy (0-3p):

Question: What evidence supports the safety and efficacy of your product or service in a pediatric setting? If no data is available, how do you plan to generate this evidence?

0: The proposal provides no information about safety and efficacy.

1: The proposal mentions safety and efficacy but lacks concrete data or a detailed plan.

2: The proposal includes preliminary data or a basic plan for demonstrating safety and efficacy.

3: The proposal presents compelling preliminary data or a robust plan for rigorously evaluating safety and efficacy.

7. Data Management and Privacy (0-3p):

Question: How does your product or service address data security, privacy, and ethical considerations, particularly in relation to relevant regulations?0: The proposal does not address data privacy or ethical considerations.

0: The proposal does not address data privacy or ethical considerations.

1: The proposal mentions data privacy and ethics but lacks specific measures to ensure compliance.

2: The proposal outlines data management procedures and demonstrates awareness of relevant regulations.

3: The proposal details a comprehensive plan for data management and privacy, ensuring compliance with all relevant regulations and ethical standards.

8. Interoperability (0-3p):

Question: How does your product or service integrate with existing hospital systems and infrastructure?

0: The solution appears incompatible with existing hospital systems.

1: The proposal mentions interoperability but lacks specifics on integration capabilities.

2: The proposal describes the potential for integration and outlines some technical approaches.

3: The proposal provides a clear plan for seamless integration with existing hospital systems, minimizing disruption and maximizing compatibility.

After the 10 best proposals exceeding the threshold of 16 points have presented their solutions in an online event and the jury has had an opportunity to ask clarifying questions, the winning tenders will be chosen based on the general evaluation criteria.

General Evaluation Process

For the purpose of evaluation, tenders submitted will be evaluated based on the following quality criteria in accordance with the specified weightings: 1) feasibility (40 %), 2) novelty and innovativeness (30 %), 3) impact and sustainability (20 %), and 4) scalability (10 %). The maximum number of points is 100. Each challenge has a fixed price, which means that the price is not an evaluation criteria.

Each evaluation criterion is scored on a scale of 0–3 points. The maximum total score that a tender can receive is 100 points.

The scoring will be evaluated accordingly:

• 3 points: The criterion is met excellently.
• 2 points: The criterion is well met.
• 1 point: The criterion has been taken into account to some extent.
• 0 points: The criterion has been taken into account weakly or not at all.

General Evaluation Criteria

1. Feasibility, weight 40 % (0-21p equals max. 40 points)

• Equivalency: The proposal meets the specific challenge description. (0-3p)
• Clarity of the tender: The description of measures, goals, timetables and resources shows that the solution can be implemented in a high-quality and safe manner, within the agreed timeframe and at the location specified in the invitation to tender. (0-3p)
• Technical feasibility: The solution can be realistically implemented with current technology/data/resources available. (0-3p)
• Competence: The Bidder demonstrates that they have sufficient competence and resources to implement the service. Competence of the personnel assigned for the pilot project, e.g. CVs or other characterisations and support material. (0-3p)
• Restrictions: The Bidder has no limitations (e.g. policy issues, competitive setting, or other) to work in collaboration with the pilot hosts, stakeholders, and other operators being involved in the pilot programme. (0-3p)
• Economic viability: The solution is economically viable. Consider development costs, operating costs, and potential return on investment. (0-3p)
• Market viability: The solution has a market fit. (0-3p)

2. Novelty and innovativeness, weight 30 % (0-9p equals max. 30 points)

• Novelty: The solution is new to the industry or to the specific area it targets. (0-3p)
• Innovative qualities: The solution has innovative qualities which bring value for the challenge it solves. (Evaluation is carried out based on the personal competence and general and special know-how of the members of the evaluation panel selected by the procuring entity) (0-3p)
• Degree of change: The pilot project introduces more disruptive innovations than incremental improvements like new practices/solutions/perspectives compared to the existing similar solutions. (0-3p)

3. Impact and sustainability, weight 20 % (0-9p equals max. 20 points)

• Comprehensibility: The intended impact of the service and the method to verify the impact are described clearly. (0-3p)
• Positive impact: The solution demonstrates a clear positive impact on solving the identified challenge. (0-3p)
• User needs: The solution addresses a real need or solves a challenge. Innovations that are problem-driven are more likely to be successful. (0-3p)

4. Scalability, weight 10 % (0-9p equals max. 10 points)

• Replicability: The service can be replicated or reproduced in another environment. (0-3p)
• Scalability: The Bidder demonstrates that their solution has sufficient possibilities to be beneficial for wider usage (e.g. different audience or user groups, more organisations, other countries, or other factors) than only during the specified 6 month pilot period. (0-3p)
• Business value: The solution offers potential for new business. (0-3p)

Each criterion will be evaluated as a whole. Points will be awarded at a minimum interval of 0-100 points and expressed to 2 decimal places. Tenders evaluated to be of equal value may receive the same score. In a situation where multiple tenders receive the same total score, the deciding factor will be the highest score of the criteria starting from the first criteria of the top category feasibility to the last criteria of the last category in a numerical order. 

About The New Children’s Hospital Foundation and HUS

The New Children’s Hospital (HUS Lastensairaala) is Finland’s largest hospital focused on demanding specialist pediatric medical care. We treat patients from all around Finland, from newborns to 15-year-olds.   

We treat all diseases requiring specialist pediatric medical care in the Helsinki metropolitan area. In Finland, the treatment of many demanding pediatric illnesses, such as cardiac surgery, organ transplantation, and treatment of severe cases of cancer, has been concentrated in the New Children’s Hospital.  

The well-being and equality of patients and families are the starting point for our activities. Excellent treatment results, skilled personnel, versatile research work, and new first-class facilities make the New Children’s Hospital a top-notch hospital. 

The New Children’s Hospital Foundation was established to support and promote medical research in pediatric diseases. The foundation maintains a modern children’s hospital in Helsinki and promotes pediatric research, teaching and training nationwide. 

Support provided during the pilot period

Selected innovators will receive comprehensive support during the pilot period, including:

• Regular meetings with clinical staff and relevant departments for feedback and guidance
• Access to appropriate clinical environments for testing and refinement
• Assistance with regulatory and ethical considerations
• Support in data collection and analysis
• Opportunities to present progress to hospital leadership
• Potential for co-development based on clinical input
• Guidance on potential funding sources for further development

This support aims to create a collaborative environment that maximizes the chances of successful implementation and long-term adoption of the innovative solutions.

In case of any questions, please contact the organizer satu.reijonen@forumvirium.fi.

Important Links

Check the information about the mini-piloting programme.

Register to the info session!

Apply here to this challenge after the application period opens on 17 February at 12:00 (EET).

Photo: Matti Snellman | HUS