» Articles » PMID: 32545871

Discrepancies Between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2020 Jun 18
PMID 32545871
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent studies prove that when implementing new technology technology-driven and one-size-fits-all approaches are problematic. This study focuses on the process of implementing personal emergency response system (PERS) at nursing homes. The aim is to understand why the implementation of PERS has not met initial expectations. Multiple methods were used in two Swedish nursing homes, including document analysis, questionnaires ( = 42), participant observation (67 h), and individual interviews ( = 12). A logic model was used to ascertain the discrepancies that emerged between expected and actual implementation, and the domestication theory was used to discuss the underlying meanings of the discrepancies. The discrepancies primarily focused on staff competence, system readiness, work routines, and implementation duration. Corresponding reasons were largely relevant to management issues regarding training, the procurement systems, individual and collective responsibilities as well as invisible work. The uptake of technology in daily practice is far more nuanced than a technology implementation plan might imply. We point out the importance of preparing for implementation, adjusting to new practices, and leaving space and time for facilitating implementation. The findings will be of use to implementers, service providers, and organizational managers to evaluate various measures in the implementation process, enabling them to perform technology implementation faster and more efficiently.

Citing Articles

Domesticating Social Alarm Systems in Nursing Homes: Qualitative Study of Differences in the Perspectives of Assistant Nurses.

Chang F, Ostlund B, Kuoppamaki S J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e44692.

PMID: 37145835 PMC: 10199381. DOI: 10.2196/44692.


Development Work in Swedish Eldercare: Resources for Trustworthy, Integrated Managerial Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Dellve L, Williamsson A Front Public Health. 2022; 10:864272.

PMID: 35844876 PMC: 9280882. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.864272.


Technology scripts in care practice: A case study of assistant nurses' use of a social alarm system in Swedish nursing homes.

Chang F, Kuoppamaki S, Ostlund B Digit Health. 2022; 8:20552076221089077.

PMID: 35355808 PMC: 8958713. DOI: 10.1177/20552076221089077.


A Digital Platform for Facilitating Personalized Dementia Care in Nursing Homes: Formative Evaluation Study.

Wang G, Albayrak A, Kortuem G, van der Cammen T JMIR Form Res. 2021; 5(5):e25705.

PMID: 34047703 PMC: 8196358. DOI: 10.2196/25705.

References
1.
Sovacool B, Hess D . Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc Stud Sci. 2017; 47(5):703-750. PMC: 5648049. DOI: 10.1177/0306312717709363. View

2.
Eakin J, Mykhalovskiy E . Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003; 9(2):187-94. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x. View

3.
Andreassen H, Kjekshus L, Tjora A . Survival of the project: a case study of ICT innovation in health care. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 132:62-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.016. View

4.
de Veer A, Fleuren M, Bekkema N, Francke A . Successful implementation of new technologies in nursing care: a questionnaire survey of nurse-users. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011; 11:67. PMC: 3214145. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-11-67. View

5.
Lennon M, Bouamrane M, Devlin A, OConnor S, ODonnell C, Chetty U . Readiness for Delivering Digital Health at Scale: Lessons From a Longitudinal Qualitative Evaluation of a National Digital Health Innovation Program in the United Kingdom. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(2):e42. PMC: 5334516. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6900. View