Technological advancements are vital for improving the capacity of the health system to deliver health and well-being benefits to individuals. Despite significant financial investments in technological innovations in healthcare, patients reported benefiting from only 30%–60% of new healthcare technologies. We argue that failed adoption can be attributed to the underprioritisation of the human aspect of innovation development and uptake. In this paper, we elaborate on the psychological experience of being introduced to new technology at work through the perspective of a healthcare employee. We then present a psychology-based practical framework called ‘Tech-ISM’ for healthcare decision-makers to encourage more human-centric technology implementation processes, resources and leadership. The framework identifies the key individuals and relationships within a healthcare delivery context that can influence individual attitudes towards adoption, before offering recommendations for how decision-makers can socialise new technology into the workplace (ie, types of organisational resources and processes to provide), and manage these social dynamics over time (ie, types of work cultures to cultivate through leadership). While Tech-ISM is written for a healthcare decision-maker, any individuals involved with healthcare technology implementation can benefit from a holistic understanding of how social and organisational factors of a workplace inter-relate with the human experience of novelty and change.
- Clinical Decision-Making
- Delivery of Health Care
- Health Care Economics and Organizations
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors JHKW conducted and synthesised the literature review on the topic, developed the conceptual framework and wrote the article. The rest of the authorship list reviewed the paper and provided feedback. JGC provided the funding for this project.
Funding This project is funded by a COVID-19 Innovation Fund from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.