Biomed DD

Q is a Biomedical Science student who has just started a placement in the R&D department of a pharmaceutical company. Your task is to use your understanding of the Double Diamond to help them navigate this problem. <img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/Sup&QLab.png" alt=""; width="40%"> One morning, Q’s supervisor receives a call from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). The NIEA explains that environmental monitoring has detected traces of several prescription drugs in a nearby river, downstream from the wastewater treatment plant. One drug in particular — metformin, a widely used diabetes medication — is showing up at consistently high levels. The agency is concerned: • Metformin is excreted largely unchanged in urine. • Wastewater treatment plants don’t break it down. • In aquatic systems, it can persist and may disrupt ecosystems. The NIEA is asking the company if they can propose ideas for making drugs “greener” — less likely to persist in the environment, while still effective for patients. After the call, Q’s supervisor turns to them: “This could be an important project — and a good chance for you to show how you’d tackle a challenge like this. If it were up to you, what would you do?” ''What should Q suggest?'' * [[Review data->S2G]] on metformin’s pharmacokinetics and excretion profile and speak to environmental scientists about how much is detected in water systems. * [[Change the drug’s formulation->S2B]] (e.g. switch to injections instead of tablets) to bypass the problem.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees that this is a good first step which aligns with the ''Discover'' phase of the ''Double Diamond''. ------------------------------- Over the next week, Q reviews pharmacokinetics data on metformin and consults published studies and environmental monitoring reports. They learn that: • Metformin is excreted mostly unchanged in urine, with very little metabolised by the liver. • Standard wastewater treatment doesn’t break it down, so it passes through into rivers. • Even low concentrations can affect aquatic organisms (e.g. disrupting hormone balance in fish). • Because metformin is widely prescribed as a first-line diabetes treatment, the environmental load is high and consistent year-round. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve gathered useful information. But right now, it’s a pile of facts. We need to make the problem clearer. If you had to frame this as a single challenge, how would you put it?” ''What should Q suggest?'' 1. [[“How might we reduce Metformin’s environmental persistence without compromising its clinical effectiveness?”->S3G+1G]] 2. [[“How might we stop Metformin from entering rivers?”->S3B+1G]]

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor says “While acting quickly matters, changing the formulation without understanding the underlying issue could be risky. Let’s step back and investigate first, following the Discover phase of the Double Diamond.” ---------------------------- Over the next week, Q reviews pharmacokinetics data on metformin and consults published studies and environmental monitoring reports. They learn that: • Metformin is excreted mostly unchanged in urine, with very little metabolised by the liver. • Standard wastewater treatment doesn’t break it down, so it passes through into rivers. • Even low concentrations can affect aquatic organisms (e.g. disrupting hormone balance in fish). • Because metformin is widely prescribed as a first-line diabetes treatment, the environmental load is high and consistent year-round. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve gathered useful information. But right now, it’s a pile of facts. We need to make the problem clearer. If you had to frame this as a single challenge, how would you put it?” ''What should Q suggest?'' 1. [[“How might we reduce Metformin’s environmental persistence without compromising its clinical effectiveness?”->S3G+1B]] 2. [[“How might we stop Metformin from entering rivers?”->S3B+1B]]

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a good way to frame it. It’s clear enough to guide us, but still open to creativity. It aligns with the ''Define'' phase of the ''Double Diamond''” ------------------------- Q and their supervisor meet to discuss how to address the problem. They spend some time on literature review to see how environmental persistence has been reduced in other drugs which has revealed a few different options. Q’s supervisor asks “What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • From the lit review, we found that [[modifying the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised->S4B+2G]] before excretion seems to be the most common solution, so we should start there. • We could incorporate the ideas from our lit review with some “[[What if ->S4G+2G]]” questions related to this situation e.g. What if we deliver the drug in a different way that reduces the total dose? What if we modify the structure?

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor says, “Stopping Metformin from entering rivers might be the outcome we want, but the real challenge is how to change the drug or its use without harming patients. Although the ''Define'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' says we need to define a problem statement, we need to frame it so solutions balance both. Let’s go with: How might we reduce Metformin’s environmental persistence without compromising its clinical effectiveness?” ------------------------- Q and their supervisor meet to discuss how to address the problem. They spend some time on literature review to see how environmental persistence has been reduced in other drugs which has revealed a few different options. Q’s supervisor asks “What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • From the lit review, we found that [[modifying the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised->S4B+1G+1B]] before excretion seems to be the most common solution, so we should start there. • We could incorporate the ideas from our lit review with some “[[What if->S4G+1G+1B]] questions related to this situation e.g. What if we deliver the drug in a different way that reduces the total dose? What if we modify the structure?

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a good way to frame it. It’s clear enough to guide us, but still open to creativity. It aligns with the ''Define'' phase of the ''Double Diamond''” ------------------------- Q and their supervisor meet to discuss how to address the problem. They spend some time on literature review to see how environmental persistence has been reduced in other drugs which has revealed a few different options. Q’s supervisor asks “What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • From the lit review, we found that [[modifying the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised->S4B+1G+1B]] before excretion seems to be the most common solution, so we should start there. • We could incorporate the ideas from our lit review with some “[[What if ->S4G+1G+1B]]” questions related to this situation e.g. What if we deliver the drug in a different way that reduces the total dose? What if we modify the structure?

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor says, “Stopping Metformin from entering rivers might be the outcome we want, but the real challenge is how to change the drug or its use without harming patients. Although the ''Define'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' says we need to define a problem statement, we need to frame it so solutions balance both. Let’s go with: How might we reduce Metformin’s environmental persistence without compromising its clinical effectiveness?” ------------------------- Q and their supervisor meet to discuss how to address the problem. They spend some time on literature review to see how environmental persistence has been reduced in other drugs which has revealed a few different options. Q’s supervisor asks “What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • From the lit review, we found that [[modifying the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised->S4B+2B]] before excretion seems to be the most common solution, so we should start there. • We could incorporate the ideas from our lit review with some “[[What if->S4G+2B]] questions related to this situation e.g. What if we deliver the drug in a different way that reduces the total dose? What if we modify the structure?

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “That’s a smart approach. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down” ------------------ Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+3G]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+3G]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to jump straight to structural modification, but without testing the trade-offs we risk wasted effort, or worse, harming patients. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. Let’s keep our options open and compare properly first.” -------------------------- Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+2G+1B]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+2G+1B]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to jump straight to structural modification, but without testing the trade-offs we risk wasted effort, or worse, harming patients. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. Let’s keep our options open and compare properly first.” -------------------------- Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+1G+2B]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+1G+2B]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “That’s a smart approach. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down” ------------------ Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+2G+1B]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+2G+1B]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to jump straight to structural modification, but without testing the trade-offs we risk wasted effort, or worse, harming patients. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. Let’s keep our options open and compare properly first.” -------------------------- Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+3B]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+3B]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “That’s a smart approach. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down” ------------------ Following an ideation session, Q and their supervisor find that several potentially useful options emerge: • Modify the drug’s structure so more of it is metabolised before excretion. • Change the route of administration (e.g. depot injection, transdermal patch) to lower the total dose needed. • Reformulate as a controlled-release tablet to improve absorption efficiency and reduce the amount excreted. Q’s supervisor says: “These are all interesting possibilities. We will need to present a report to management so they can decide how to take things forward, but that report should include some recommendations. What do you think we should do next?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • The option with least environmental impact and lowest cost is likely to be [[controlled-release tablets->S5B+1G+2B]] so we should recommend that. • Work with pharmacists, clinicians, representatives of patient groups, and environmental scientists to compare the options and generate a [[cost vs impact matrix->S5G+1G+2B]] showing which option offers biggest benefits for most reasonable investment.

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to lock onto the low-cost option, but this could be short-sighted. We don’t yet know if it’s the most effective solution overall. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. That’s why a proper comparison across multiple criteria — cost, patient safety, adherence, and environmental benefit — is vital.” -------------------------- Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+3G+1B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+3G+1B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a smart approach. It’s useful to include a variety of stakeholders when looking for solutions as part of the ''Develop'' phase and to consider the options across multiple criteria.” ------------------ Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+4G]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+4G]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to lock onto the low-cost option, but this could be short-sighted. We don’t yet know if it’s the most effective solution overall. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. That’s why a proper comparison across multiple criteria — cost, patient safety, adherence, and environmental benefit — is vital.” -------------------------- Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+2G+2B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+2G+2B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a smart approach. It’s useful to include a variety of stakeholders when looking for solutions as part of the ''Develop'' phase and to consider the options across multiple criteria.” ------------------ Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+3G+1B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+3G+1B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to lock onto the low-cost option, but this could be short-sighted. We don’t yet know if it’s the most effective solution overall. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. That’s why a proper comparison across multiple criteria — cost, patient safety, adherence, and environmental benefit — is vital.” -------------------------- Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+1G+3B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+1G+3B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a smart approach. It’s useful to include a variety of stakeholders when looking for solutions as part of the ''Develop'' phase and to consider the options across multiple criteria.” ------------------ Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+2G+2B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+2G+2B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions. “It’s tempting to lock onto the low-cost option, but this could be short-sighted. We don’t yet know if it’s the most effective solution overall. The ''Develop'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'' is about exploring a range of ideas before narrowing down. That’s why a proper comparison across multiple criteria — cost, patient safety, adherence, and environmental benefit — is vital.” -------------------------- Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+4B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+4B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees. “That’s a smart approach. It’s useful to include a variety of stakeholders when looking for solutions as part of the ''Develop'' phase and to consider the options across multiple criteria.” ------------------ Over the next two weeks, Q supports their supervisor in comparing the options using a cost vs impact matrix. Each option is scored against criteria: Environmental benefit, Patient safety and adherence, Patient Equity, Feasibility and regulatory pathway, Estimated development cost The results reveal: • Controlled-release tablets: Moderate environmental benefit, low cost, high feasibility, positive patient equity due to affordability. • Structural modification: Potentially high environmental benefit, but high cost and significant unknowns about safety, potentially negative patient equity due to higher costs. • Alternative delivery routes (patches/injections): Moderate benefit, but high costs and risks to patient adherence, negative patient equity due to higher costs. After scoring, two options stand out: 1. A controlled-release tablet — practical and affordable, a good near-term option. 2. A structural tweak — higher-risk, but worth investigating further. Q’s supervisor says: “We’ve got two potential solutions. What do you think we should put in the report to management?” ''What should Q suggest?'' • We should recommend investigating just [[one option->S6B+1G+3B]] to keep things simple. Controlled-release tablets look most promising, so let’s focus only on that. • We should recommend [[both options->S6G+1G+3B]] for further investigation, but emphasise that controlled-release tablets could be tested first in a pilot study, while structural modification undergoes early safety checks

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions “That risks looking like we ignored the bigger picture. In this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', we want to show not just that we’ve compared options fairly but also that we can think strategically about longer-term innovation.” ----------------------------------- ''[[Submit report wtih both options->Good]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “Yes, in this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', it’s useful to show that we’ve compared the options fairly and are thinking strategically about quick wins plus longer-term innovation”. ---------------------------------- ''[[Submit report->Perfect]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions “That risks looking like we ignored the bigger picture. In this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', we want to show not just that we’ve compared options fairly but also that we can think strategically about longer-term innovation.” ----------------------------------- ''[[Submit report wtih both options->OK]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “Yes, in this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', it’s useful to show that we’ve compared the options fairly and are thinking strategically about quick wins plus longer-term innovation”. ---------------------------------- ''[[Submit report->Good]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions “That risks looking like we ignored the bigger picture. In this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', we want to show not just that we’ve compared options fairly but also that we can think strategically about longer-term innovation.” ----------------------------------- ''[[Submit report wtih both options->Poor]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “Yes, in this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', it’s useful to show that we’ve compared the options fairly and are thinking strategically about quick wins plus longer-term innovation”. ---------------------------------- ''[[Submit report->OK]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions “That risks looking like we ignored the bigger picture. In this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', we want to show not just that we’ve compared options fairly but also that we can think strategically about longer-term innovation.” ----------------------------------- ''[[Submit report wtih both options->Poor]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “Yes, in this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', it’s useful to show that we’ve compared the options fairly and are thinking strategically about quick wins plus longer-term innovation”. ---------------------------------- ''[[Submit report->OK]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorNotHappy.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor cautions “That risks looking like we ignored the bigger picture. In this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', we want to show not just that we’ve compared options fairly but also that we can think strategically about longer-term innovation.” ----------------------------------- ''[[Submit report wtih both options->Poor]]''

<img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/SupervisorHappyYYY.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Q’s supervisor agrees “Yes, in this ''Deliver'' phase of the ''Double Diamond'', it’s useful to show that we’ve compared the options fairly and are thinking strategically about quick wins plus longer-term innovation”. ---------------------------------- ''[[Submit report->Poor]]''

Q’s supervisor presents the report, including Q’s analysis and recommendations, to the management team. Management is impressed with the structured approach taken to consider this issue and agrees to move forward with further investigation of both options. <img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/QandSupHappyss.png" alt=""; width="40%"> ###Congratulations on helping the team achieve this outcome! You clearly have a good understanding of how to apply the Double Diamond. ''Here is your completion code: BIO-EM-DD''

Q’s supervisor presents the report, including Q’s analysis and recommendations, to the management team. Management is impressed with the structured approach taken to consider this issue and agrees to move forward with further investigation of both options. ------------------------------------------- <img src="https://cms25.neocities.org/Double%20Diamond%20Images/Qthinkingss.png" alt=""; width="40%"> Unfortunately, you haven't chosen enough options related to the Double Diamond to complete the game. [[Please try again->Start]]