Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Successful Implementation of Technological Innovations in Health Care Organizations

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

In order to accept and implement technology in a successful manner, not only determinants (acceptance barriers or facilitators) related to individual persons, for instance, health care providers as well as health care recipients, are important. Also interpersonal relationships on the work floor as well as the readiness and support of the organization itself are involved in the process of uptake of innovations. The Normalization Process Theory explains how this can be understood. The Technology Adoption Readiness Scale (TARS), developed based on this theory, offers a tool to diagnose the opportunities and challenges in health care organizations with respect to the implementation of certain technology- or eHealth applications. In order to guide the process of large scale implementation of technological innovations, also a pre implementation diagnosis is useful. This diagnosis, when provided by a “neutral party” has proved to be helpful for monitoring, guiding and thus supporting the implementation process of technological innovations in health care settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson JG (2007) Social, ethical and legal barriers to e-health [Review]. Int J Med Inform 76(5–6):480–483. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush M, Lederer AL, Li X, Palmisano J, Rao S (2009) The alignment of information systems with organizational objectives and strategies in health care. Int J Med Inform 78(7):446–456. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen MC, Remler D (2009) Information and communications technology in U.S. health care: why is adoption so slow and is slower better? [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. J Health Polit Policy Law 34(6):1011–1034. doi:10.1215/03616878-2009-034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch TL, Mair FS, O’Donnell C, Murray E, May CR (2012) From theory to ‘measurement’ in complex interventions: methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument [Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:69. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch TL, Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, … May CR (2013) Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Implement Sci 8:43. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-43

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden RJ (2011) What stands in the way of technology-mediated patient safety improvements?: a study of facilitators and barriers to physicians’ use of electronic health records [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. J Patient Saf 7(4):193–203. doi:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182388cfa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketikidis P, Dimitrovski T, Lazuras L, Bath PA (2012) Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: an application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics J 18(2):124–134. doi:10.1177/1460458211435425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch S (2006) Home telehealth–current state and future trends [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t review]. Int J Med Inform 75(8):565–576. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.09.002

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Koller M, Aaronson NK, Blazeby J, Bottomley A, Dewolf L, Fayers P, … West K (2007) Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach [Evaluation Studies]. Eur J Cancer 43(12):1810–1820. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.029

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Talaei-Khoei A, Seale H, Ray P, MacIntyre CR (2013) Health care provider adoption of eHealth: systematic literature review. Interact J Med Res 2(1), e7. doi:10.2196/ijmr.2468

    Google Scholar 

  • Lluch M (2011) Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies-a literature review [Review]. Int J Med Inform 80(12):849–862. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E (2012) Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t review]. Bull World Health Organ 90(5):357–364. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.099424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May C (2006) A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care [Evaluation Studies Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. BMC Health Serv Res 6:86. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May C, Finch T (2009) Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 43:535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, … Heaven B (2007) Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. BMC Health Serv Res 7:148. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-148

    Google Scholar 

  • May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, … Montori VM (2009) Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci 4:29. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-29

    Google Scholar 

  • May C, Finch T, Ballini L, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Murray E, … Rapley T (2011) Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Heal Serv Res 11(1):245

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, … May C (2010) Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. BMC Med 8:63. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-63

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray E, Burns J, May C, Finch T, O’Donnell C, Wallace P, Mair F (2011) Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Implement Sci 6:6. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieboer ME, van Hoof J, Van Hout AM, Aarts S, Wouters EJM (2014) Professional values, technology and future health care: the view of health care professionals in The Netherlands. Technol Soc 39:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemeijer A, Frederiks B, Depla M, Eefsting J, Hertogh C (2013) The place of surveillance technology in residential care for people with intellectual disabilities: is there an ideal model of application. J Intellect Disabil Res 57(3):201–215. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01526.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peek STM, Wouters EJM, Van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM (2014) Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 83(4):235–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, … Hensley M (2011) Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Adm Policy Ment Health 38(2):65–76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, … Newman SP (2012) Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: a qualitative study [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. BMC Health Serv Res 12:220. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-220

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER (2011) A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies [Review]. J Med Internet Res 13(4), e111. doi:10.2196/jmir.1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27:425–478

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Eveline J. M. Wouters & Thea C. M. Weijers

  2. Royal Kentalis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Thea C. M. Weijers

  3. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, NE2 4AX, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Tracy L. Finch

Authors
  1. Eveline J. M. Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thea C. M. Weijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tracy L. Finch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eveline J. M. Wouters .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Joost van Hoof

  2. School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

    George Demiris

  3. Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Eveline J.M. Wouters

Appendix TARS Items

Appendix TARS Items

  1. 1.

    CA-CI The ehealth system is adequately resourced financially

  2. 2.

    CA-CI Sufficient organizational effort has gone into supporting the ehealth system

  3. 3.

    CA-CI The ehealth system is a different way of working

  4. 4.

    CA-CI The rewards of using the ehealth system outweighs the effort

  5. 5.

    CA-CI Government policy initiatives are supportive of this ehealth system

  6. 6.

    CA-CI This ehealth system is technically and organisationally compatible with other systems and agencies that we are required to work with

  7. 7.

    CA-CI This ehealth system fits in with the priorities and challenges of our organisation

  8. 8.

    CA-CI This organisation has a culture that is supportive of change

  9. 9.

    CA-CI There is a culture in this organisation of involving staff in planning and development

  10. 10.

    CA-SSW Using the ehealth system makes me feel autonomous in my work

  11. 11.

    CA-SSW Using the ehealth system requires co-operation with other staff

  12. 12.

    CA-SSW The workload involved in using the ehealth system is manageable

  13. 13.

    CA-SSW In using the ehealth system, the allocation of work between individuals is appropriate

  14. 14.

    CA-SSW The skills I have are appropriate for using the ehealth system

  15. 15.

    CA-SSW The skills needed to use the ehealth system are easily learned

  16. 16.

    CA-RI I have confidence that using the ehealth system does not put patients at risk

  17. 17.

    CA-RI Using the ehealth system is an efficient use of time

  18. 18.

    CA-RI In using the ehealth system, responsibilities are divided between individuals appropriately

  19. 19.

    CA-RI In using the ehealth system, I understand my accountability for my work

  20. 20.

    CA-RI In using the ehealth system, I understand my liability for my practice

  21. 21.

    CA-RI Technical back-up in using the ehealth system is available if I need it

  22. 22.

    CA-IW I believe there is good evidence about the clinical effectiveness of using the ehealth system

  23. 23.

    CA-IW There is some flexibility in how the ehealth system can be used

  24. 24.

    CA-IW Using the ehealth system leads to positive outcomes for patients

  25. 25.

    CA-IW Using the ehealth system involves the right amount of time spent

  26. 26.

    CA-IW In using the ehealth system, the quality of professional and patient interaction is good

  27. 27.

    CA-IW The ehealth system is easy to use

  28. 28.

    Coherence The staff who work here have a shared understanding of what the system is for and how it is to be used

  29. 29.

    Cognitive Participation The staff here are committed to making the system work

  30. 30.

    Reflexive Monitoring There are ongoing mechanisms for monitoring and appraising

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Wouters, E.J.M., Weijers, T.C.M., Finch, T.L. (2015). Successful Implementation of Technological Innovations in Health Care Organizations. In: van Hoof, J., Demiris, G., Wouters, E. (eds) Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01904-8_68-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01904-8_68-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01904-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation