BackgroundMany promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level.ObjectiveOur objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program.MethodsThe study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback.ResultsThe literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs.ConclusionsSubject to further empirical testing, NASSS could be applied across a range of technological innovations in health and social care. It has several potential uses: (1) to inform the desi...

An opportunity in a crisis?

BackgroundThere is much interest in virtual consultations using video technology. Randomized controlled trials have shown video consultations to be acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and circumstances. However, this model has rarely been mainstreamed and sustained in real-world settings.ObjectiveThe study sought to (1) define good practice and inform implementation of video outpatient consultations and (2) generate transferable knowledge about challenges to scaling up and routinizing this service model.MethodsA multilevel, mixed-method study of Skype video consultations (micro level) was embedded in an organizational case study (meso level), taking account of national context and wider influences (macro level). The study followed the introduction of video outpatient consultations in three clinical services (diabetes, diabetes antenatal, and cancer surgery) in a National Health Service trust (covering three hospitals) in London, United Kingdom. Data sources included 36 national-level stakeholders (exploratory and semistructured interviews), longitudinal organizational ethnography (300 hours of observations; 24 staff interviews), 30 videotaped remote consultations, 17 audiotaped face-to-face consultations, and national and local documents. Qualitative data, analyzed using sociotechnical change theories, addressed staff and patient experience and organizational and system drivers. Quantitative data, analyzed via descriptive statistics, included uptake of video consultations by staff and patients and microcategorization of different kinds of talk (using the Roter interaction analysis system).ResultsWhen clinical, technical, and practical preconditions were met, video consultations appeared safe and were popular with some patients and staff. Compared with face-to-face consultations for similar conditions, video consultations were very slightly shorter, patients did slightly more talking, and both parties sometimes needed to make explicit things that typically remained implicit in a traditional encounter. Video consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and patient already knew and trusted each other. Some clinicians used Skype adaptively to respond to patient requests for ad hoc encounters in a way that appeared to strengthen supported self-management. The reality of establishing video outpatient services in a busy and financially stretched acute hospital setting proved more complex and time-consuming than originally anticipated. By the end of this study, between 2% and 22% of consultations were being undertaken remotely by participating clinicians. In the remainder, clinicians chose not to participate, or video consultations were considered impractical, technically unachievable, or clinically inadvisable. Technical challenges were typically minor but potentially prohibitive.ConclusionsVideo outpatient consultations appear safe, effective, and convenient for patients in situations where participating clinicians judge them clinically appropriate, but such situations are a fraction of t...

Telehealth and telecare research has been dominated by efficacy trials. The field lacks a sophisticated theorisation of [a] what matters to older people with assisted living needs; [b] how illness affects people's capacity to use technologies; and [c] the materiality of assistive technologies. We sought to develop a phenomenologically and socio-materially informed theoretical model of assistive technology use. Forty people aged 60-98 (recruited via NHS, social care and third sector) were visited at home several times in 2011-13. Using ethnographic methods, we built a detailed picture of participants' lives, illness experiences and use (or non-use) of technologies. Data were analysed phenomenologically, drawing on the work of Heidegger, and contextualised using a structuration approach with reference to Bourdieu's notions of habitus and field. We found that participants' needs were diverse and unique. Each had multiple, mutually reinforcing impairments (e.g. tremor and visual loss and stiff hands) that were steadily worsening, culturally framed and bound up with the prospect of decline and death. They managed these conditions subjectively and experientially, appropriating or adapting technologies so as to enhance their capacity to sense and act on their world. Installed assistive technologies met few participants' needs; some devices had been abandoned and a few deliberately disabled. Successful technology arrangements were often characterised by 'bricolage' (pragmatic customisation, combining new with legacy devices) by the participant or someone who knew and cared about them. With few exceptions, the current generation of so-called 'assisted living technologies' does not assist people to live with illness. To overcome this irony, technology providers need to move beyond the goal of representing technology users informationally (e.g. as biometric data) to providing flexible components from which individuals and their carers can 'think with things' to improve the situated, lived experience of multi-morbidity. A radical revision of assistive technology design policy may be needed.

IntroductionRemote video consultations between clinician and patient are technically possible and increasingly acceptable. They are being introduced in some settings alongside (and occasionally replacing) face-to-face or telephone consultations.MethodsTo explore the advantages and limitations of video consultations, we will conduct in-depth qualitative studies of real consultations (microlevel) embedded in an organisational case study (mesolevel), taking account of national context (macrolevel). The study is based in 2 contrasting clinical settings (diabetes and cancer) in a National Health Service (NHS) acute trust in London, UK. Main data sources are: microlevel—audio, video and screen capture to produce rich multimodal data on 45 remote consultations; mesolevel—interviews, ethnographic observations and analysis of documents within the trust; macrolevel—key informant interviews of national-level stakeholders and document analysis. Data will be analysed and synthesised using a sociotechnical framework developed from structuration theory.Ethics approvalCity Road and Hampstead NHS Research Ethics Committee, 9 December 2014, reference 14/LO/1883.Planned outputsWe plan outputs for 5 main audiences: (1) academics: research publications and conference presentations; (2) service providers: standard operating procedures, provisional operational guidance and key safety issues; (3) professional bodies and defence societies: summary of relevant findings to inform guidance to members; (4) policymakers: summary of key findings; (5) patients and carers: ‘what to expect in your virtual consultation’.DiscussionThe research literature on video consultations is sparse. Such consultations offer potential advantages to patients (who are spared the cost and inconvenience of travel) and the healthcare system (eg, they may be more cost-effective), but fears have been expressed that they may be clinically risky and/or less acceptable to patients or staff, and they bring significant technical, logistical and regulatory challenges. We anticipate that this study will contribute to a balanced assessment of when, how and in what circumstances this model might be introduced.