Collaboration Matters: Why Australia Needs a Better Model for Innovation

Australia has an unusual approach to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS).

Unlike most comparable health systems, Australia requires hospitals to maintain formal antimicrobial approval policies as part of accreditation standards. This embeds stewardship deeply into regulatory processes, and positions national stewardship programs as influential gatekeepers for how hospitals engage with technology.

In theory, this should create a fertile environment for collaboration between public programs and innovative Australian companies, as digital tools can help with prescribing and approvals, and when backed by public policy this can drive innovation.

In practice, the experience of Clinical Branches shows how difficult that collaboration can be.

Our Attempts to Engage

Since Kraken Coding first established the Open Source Antimicrobial Stewardship project, and later Clinical Branches, we have repeatedly approached national stewardship groups seeking partnership opportunities, data-sharing discussions, or clarity on how we could integrate with public programs (see above). We had limited success.

In an FOI request we submitted this year, one internal email referred to us as the organisation's "main competitor". That was surprising, Clinical Branches is a small Australian Startup, privately funded, working to improve clinical decision support in healthcare.

We do not occupy the same space as publicly funded national stewardship programs, nor should we be seen through a commercial lens by any public funded body.

Structural Overlaps Make Engagement Difficult

Part of the challenge appears to stem from the way Australia has combined:

• a national stewardship program (NCAS),
• a national audit program (NAPS), and
• a pay-for-use commercial stewardship platform (Guidance AMS)

under overlapping leadership and organisational umbrellas.

This arrangement is unique. It creates a situation where a public program with national influence is closely associated with a commercial product used by hospitals across the country.

To be clear:

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing.

This is simply a description of the current structure.

But this overlap does make it challenging for independent innovators to understand how to participate in the ecosystem. When public influence and commercial products sit side by side, engagement with external companies can become complicated, slow, or discouraged simply by the way the system is designed.

Why We Stopped Trying to Engage

After multiple unanswered emails and requests for collaboration, we ultimately stopped pursuing engagement. The system simply does not appear built for external collaboration, despite the clear national need for innovation.

This is not a personal issue with any individual.

It is a structural and cultural issue.

Why This Matters

Australia has the talent and ecosystem to lead the world in innovative clinical decision support.

But genuine innovation requires:

• open collaboration
• transparent governance
• a clear separation between publicly funded programs and commercial products
• a willingness to engage with emerging technology providers

Right now, the policy settings and organisational structures make this harder than it needs to be.

Where Clinical Branches Stands

We remain committed to improving clinical decision support, patient safety, and antimicrobial stewardship outcomes across Australia. We built Clinical Branches because there was a genuine need for fast, structured information to support clinical decisions at the point of care.

We will continue to work with hospitals, clinicians, research groups, and private or public partners who recognise the value of innovation and who are open to collaboration.

Australia deserves an ecosystem where public and private entities can work together, not view one another as competitors.