Health and Technology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 255–261 | Cite as

Bridging healthcare education and technology solution development through experiential innovation

  • Noel CarrollEmail author
  • Ita Richardson
  • Mairead Moloney
  • Pauline O’Reilly
Original Paper


Healthcare education is continually evolving to meet the global healthcare needs of society. Education is of critical importance to support healthcare workers professional development while also expanding the evidence-base for healthcare professional training. There are inherent links between healthcare professionals’ educational development and patient safety. In recent years, there has been considerable emphasis on the role of technology to enhance patient safety and to support healthcare professionals in practice. However there is growing concern regarding the mismatch in healthcare professionals technological skills and how technological innovators are informed of healthcare needs. Education plays a key role to bridge this gap. Collaborating in simulated clinical learning environments, e.g. university-simulated clinical skills laboratories, can provide a valuable resource to support students’ technical competencies as they graduate into a digital healthcare environment. It also provides a safe innovation environment for healthcare solution developers to experiment with implementing technology to improve healthcare practice and faculty development. We review the literature to examine state-of-the-art in healthcare education and healthcare innovation with a view to developing a framework to guide how we can begin to successfully bridge healthcare education and technology innovation.


Healthcare education Healthcare technology Experiential innovation Simulation Clinical skills 



This work was supported with the financial support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme to Lero - the Irish Software Research Centre (

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Adhikari R, Tocher J, Smith P, Corcoran J, MacArthur J. A multi-disciplinary approach to medication safety and the implication for nursing education and practice. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(2):185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Elq AH. Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. J Fam Community Med. 2010;17(1):35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett T, Cross M, Shahwan-Akl L, Jacob E. The evaluation of a successful collaborative education model to expand student clinical placements. Nurse Educ Pract. 2010;10(1):17–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bland AJ, Topping A, Wood B. A concept analysis of simulation as a learning strategy in the education of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):664–70.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler MP, Cassidy I, Quillinan B, Fahy A, Bradshaw C, Tuohy D, et al. Competency assessment methods–tool and processes: a survey of nurse preceptors in Ireland. Nurse Educ Pract. 2011;11(5):298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll N. Key success factors for smart and connected health software solutions. Computer. 2016;49(11):22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carroll N, Richardson I. Aligning Healthcare Innovation and Software Requirements through Design Thinking. International workshop on software engineering in healthcare conference (SEHC). May 14-15, Austin; 2016.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll N, Richardson I. A disciplined innovation approach to health technology solutions. 10th International Conference on health informatics (HEALTHINF) 2017, 21-23 February 2017, Porto, Portugal; 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carroll N, Travers M, Richardson I. Evaluating multiple perspectives of a connected health ecosystem, 9th international conference on health informatics (HEALTHINF). Rome, Italy, February 21-23; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casey M, Fealy G, Kennedy C, Hegarty J, Prizeman G, McNamara M, et al. Nurses', midwives' and key stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of a scope of nursing and midwifery practice framework. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(6):1227–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chipchase L, Dalton M, Williams M, Scutter S. Is education immune from evidencebased scrutiny? Aust J Physiother. 2004:50(3):133–135.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow M, Herold DK, Choo TM, Chan K. Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Comput Educ. 2012;59(4):1136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE. An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev. 1999;24(3):522–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DoH. Report of the review of undergraduate nursing and midwifery degree programmes, Department of Health (December). 2012. Retrieved on 31/10/2017 from website:
  15. 15.
    Downie R, Tannahill C, Tannahill A. Health promotion: models and values. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health program planning: an educational and ecological approach. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Griffiths W. Health education definitions, problems, and philosophies. Health Educ Monogr. 1972;31:12–4.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Handley R, Dodge N. Can simulated practice learning improve clinical competence? Br J Nurs. 2013;22(9):529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzlinger RE. Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harv Bus Rev. 2006;84(5):58.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Issenberg SB. The scope of simulation-based healthcare education. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(4):203–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iverson L, Ball S, Harms A, Murcek C, Woods S, Young T. Technology in the college of nursing: perception and use to achieve learning outcomes. Online J Nurs Inform (OJNI). 2016;20(1). Retrieved on 31/10/2017 from website:
  23. 23.
    Kennedy C, O'Reilly P, Fealy G, Casey M, Brady AM, McNamara M, et al. Comparative analysis of nursing and midwifery regulatory and professional bodies' scope of practice and associated decision-making frameworks: a discussion paper. J Adv Nurs. 2015;71(8):1797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirch DG, Henderson MK, Dill MJ. Physician workforce projections in an era of health care reform. Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:435–45. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O'Leary, P., Carroll, N., Clarke, P., & Richardson, I. (2015, October). Untangling the complexity of connected health evaluations. In Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2015 International Conference on (pp. 272–281). IEEE.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peteani LA. Enhancing clinical practice and education with high-fidelity human patient simulators. Nurse Educ. 2004;29(1):25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richardson I, Reid L, Seidman SB, Pattinson B, Delaney Y. Educating software engineers of the future: software quality research through problem-based learning. In: 2011 24th IEEE-CS conference on software engineering education and training (CSEE&T) (pp. 91–100). IEEE; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robertson A, Minkler M. New health promotion movement: a critical examination. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers L. Developing simulations in multi-user virtual environments to enhance healthcare education. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwartz R, Goodman R, Steckler A. Policy advocacy interventions for health promotion and education: advancing the state of practice. Health Educ Q. 1995;22(4):421–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith SD, Henn P, Gaffney R, Hynes H, McAdoo J, Bradley C. A study of innovative patient safety education. Clin Teach. 2012;9(1):37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smothers V, Ellaway R, Greene P. The E-learning evolution–leveraging new technology approaches to advance healthcare education. Medical Teacher. 2008;30(2):117–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Steven A, Magnusson C, Smith P, Pearson PH. Patient safety in nursing education: contexts, tensions and feeling safe to learn. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(2):277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thistlethwaite JE, Jackson A. Conflict in practice-based settings: nature, resolution andeducation. International Journal of Practice-based Learning in Health and Social Care. 2016;2(2):2–13.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tun JK, Alinier G, Tang J, Kneebone RL. Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simul Gaming. 2015;46(2):159–74.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vogt MA, Schaffner BH. Evaluating interactive technology for an evolving case study on learning and satisfaction of graduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;19:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watson K, Wright A, Morris N, McMeeken J, Rivett D, Blackstock F, Jones A, Haines T, O’Connor V, Watson G, Peterson R. Can simulation replace part of clinical time? Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):657–67.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    World Health Organization. Transforming and scaling up health professionals’ education and training: World Health Organization guidelines. 2013. World Health Organization. Retrieved from website: Accessed 19 May 2016.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    World Health Organisation Study Group. Regulatory mechanisms for nursing training and practice: meeting primary health care needs. Geneva: WHO; 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noel Carroll
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ita Richardson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mairead Moloney
    • 4
  • Pauline O’Reilly
    • 4
  1. 1.Lero - The Irish Software Research CentreNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Lero - The Irish Software Research CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.HRI - Health Research InstituteUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  4. 4.Department of Nursing and MidwiferyUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations