E-health, IOT … the health sector is changing and also benefiting from technological advances. All these innovations have an impact on the organization of an institution, hospital or nursing home. How to optimize this impact? How to deal with resistance to change?
Here are some possible solutions, using the testimony of Jérôme Laurent-Michel, nurse and clinical advisor at MintT.
Technological advances have led to a decrease in the death rate and an increase in the quality of care. But there has been a price to pay, which is resistance to change.
We caregivers, care coordinators and healthcare workers have not yet been drawn into this technological spiral. How can we respond to this anxiety today? How can we implement technological innovation and balance the losses and gains it represents?
“I remember the transition to the year 2000. I was working in neonatal intensive care, a service at the cutting edge of innovation. On each incubator, for safety’s sake, there was a camping light that worked on … a battery just in case everything else stopped. Thinking about that today, it seems totally unreasonable to me.”
MintT wants to support innovation
MintT consequently tries to meet all the conditions necessary for the implementation of the technology:
- We support healthcare institutions in raising awareness regarding the problem of falls in order to improve the perception of the usefulness of the product.
- We support the care teams in the use of the system in order to be able to identify clearly the advantages of ISA.
- We even support IT departments by performing a system-to-network compatibility audit.
More than a product, ISA offers a support service regarding the management of the problem of falls.
1. Grieving for your old organizational ways
All innovations disrupt work habits, either by replacing well-established processes or by increasing the workload.
Accepting change is not easy and can be very difficult. This can generate reactions similar to the stages of the grieving process: denial, anger, negotiation, depression and then acceptance.
2. Looking for a human-innovation symbiosis
8 models of acceptance have been developed over the past decades.
In 2003, Venkatesh et al. proposed a unified model: the UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology).
In 2010, Brangier et al. argued that the human acceptance method of technology would not be the ideal solution. They propose to approach implantation issues as a symbiosis between human and machine.
My advice is therefore to look for “compatibility” and ergonomics of innovations so that they meet the natural needs of users. In short, it is about offering technologies that meet a well-identified need and have a concern about how it’s used.
3. Questioning the utility and benefit
For Karahanna et al. in 1999, even before the technology was implemented, users remained skeptical. They felt the need to discuss with their peers in order to answer two questions:
- What is the perceived utility?
- What are the perceived benefits?
This would correspond to a suggestive pre-adoption standard. These two factors would constitute the two main criteria for long-term use.
4. Exactly how do you implement an innovation?
First of all, the involvement of all stakeholders is fundamental: both administration and infrastructure, IT, users and patients must be included in the implementation project.
Establish a project management strategy and method
The implementation plan must be clear and be the subject of constant communication to all users. Hospital management, with strong leadership, must be committed to supporting the project steadfastly.
There is no denying there will be misunderstandings and uncertainties. It is therefore necessary, when dealing with the human-technology combination, to promote discussion, feedback and development while keeping in mind the benefits of this life project. We must stay the course!
It’s important not to forget to value the opinion of the users. Their feedback must weigh heavily in the final decision. Their contributions are invaluable in adapting and personalizing the technology to the particularities of the institution.
The essential role of management
The health structure must provide sufficient budgets and be available.
The returns to be hoped for need not necessarily be of direct economic benefit to the institution. Many other benefits must be taken into consideration:
- Improvement in the quality of care
- Impact on the quality of life at work
- Visibility of the structure / institution
However, management must clarify the potential returns on investment it expects from the technology before starting the implementation.
5. Measure the success
Success is multidimensional, it corresponds to the initial expectations of each part of the requesting structures.
The criteria for success must be defined jointly by all stakeholders. Success can, for example, be reflected as much in reduced falls or in terms of staff satisfaction, as in an improvement in the quality of the relationship with the families.