What failure really means in healthtech
Last week, I attended a OneHealthTech London event exploring healthtech failures and what comes next.
OneHealthTech is a volunteer-led global community working to make health innovation more “diverse, inclusive and accessible”. Through its local hubs and events, it brings together people from across the sector to share experiences and build connections.
The event featured a panel discussion with Divia Mattoo, Head of Growth at Kneu Health, and Barri Morgan Jones, NHS Strategy Lead at Strolll.
Kneu Health develops digital tools that transform smartphones into clinical-grade monitors for neurological conditions, starting with Parkinson’s and dementia. Strolll uses augmented reality (AR) technology to support neurological rehabilitation for people living with Parkinson’s, stroke and multiple sclerosis (MS).
Although the session focused on failure, much of the discussion centred on the realities of building a healthtech company.
One theme that emerged throughout the conversation was that successful products start with a clearly defined problem rather than a piece of technology. Jones explained that Strolll’s platform grew from a real patient need rather than an attempt to find an application for augmented reality. In a sector dominated by discussions around AI and digital health, it is important to understand that technology alone is rarely enough.
The discussion also looked at the evolving investment landscape. Healthtech funding has become more selective, with investors emphasising the evidence of adoption, product-market fit and commercial sustainability rather than future potential alone. Building an innovative product remains important, but founders increasingly need to demonstrate that they understand how healthcare organisations buy, implement and use technology.
This was particularly evident in the conversation about selling into the NHS. The panel argued that healthcare organisations are not simply assessing a product; they are assessing whether a company can support implementation, integrate into existing clinical pathways and build a long-term partnership. Technology may open the door, but trust, support and execution are often what determine whether adoption follows.
A key point early in the discussion was the difference between failure in healthcare and failure in startups. In healthcare, failure is closely linked to patient safety, which makes organisations naturally more risk-averse. In startups, setbacks are often part of testing, refining and improving a product. The challenge is knowing when to persevere and when to adapt.
A recurring message was that failure does not necessarily mean an idea is wrong. Timing, market readiness and product design can all change. The important part is responding to feedback, understanding market signals and being willing to evolve.
The discussion reflected broader changes across the sector. Investors, healthcare providers and founders are increasingly focused on the same questions: does the product solve a genuine problem, can it be adopted in practice, and can the company demonstrate long-term value?
Innovation remains central to healthtech, but increasingly it needs to be supported by evidence, and a clear understanding of how healthcare systems work and the problem the platform is trying to solve.
We would welcome your thoughts on this story. Email your views to Rakshitha Narasimhan or call 0207 183 3779.
