by Tony Chen

I recently read the cover story of the Sept/Oct 2008 edition of Healthcare Executive, "Technology in Healthcare" by Marc Larsen, FACHE.

"Not another article touting the benefits of technology, please" is honestly what came to my mind when I saw the title, but then I found myself nodding my head enthusiastically as I read through the article.

Mr. Larsen makes the point that investments in technology are crucial for the survival and continued success for hospitals everywhere, but few hospitals seem to have a disciplined approach to truly evaluating the technology's value (and not to mention, making it work the ways it's supposed to). Why is it that even "progressive" hospitals seem to look at new technology primarily from a capital/budget perspective only?

[More:]

Sometimes, technologies are evaluated poorly because:
1. We only look at it from one dimension (pick one: patient safety, quality, costs, market growth, branding). A framework that encompassess all of these factors will provide a much more rich and insightful picture.
2. We only look at the investment from the one-time lump sum needed up front. Those darn on-going costs add up quick.
3. We forget that tech isn't as important as performance. We are not in a tech arms race, folks, we are in a performance race. And performance is much more involved in bringing in the newest gadget. Too often we've underestimated the amount of time and effort needed to lead the non-technical "soft" side of change - the change in culture, the care establishing of cross-functional coalitions and collaborating guidelines, the process changes, the ripple effect on other processes. Let's also not forget the culture change required to incorporate points 1 & 2 above into the decision-making process.

How is technology handled at your organization? What frameworks have you used to evaluate technology in a strategic and multi-dimensional way?

And here's the other taboo topic that needs to be addressed: is there really any advantage in being an early adopter (versus a fast follower)? If you have to pay 25%, 50% more to be first, do you actually get 25, 50% more benefit?