Why the Technology Itself Can Make or Break Smart Care Adoption

Hubert van Dalen
Jul 7
4 min read

Updated: Jul 15

“Technology shouldn’t be chosen just because funding is available. It should be deployed as part of a clear care technology strategy, one designed for groups of clients with shared care needs, using tested, integrated solutions that match your service model and staff capacity.”

Technology is often positioned as the enabler of modern aged care. But in practice, the technology itself is frequently a source of friction, failure—or abandonment. In this second article in the Care Technology adoption series, we examine Influence/Domain 2: The Technology, and explore why functional tools often underperform in real-world care settings.

Domain 2: The Technology

This domain looks at the intrinsic characteristics of the technology, its design, functionality, and the knowledge it demands of its users.

Key subdomains include:

2A. Material features (usability, reliability, adaptability)
2B. Knowledge generated (data quality, interpretability)
2C. Knowledge/support required (technical burden on users)
2D. Supply and vendor model (sustainability, support, risk)

Technology succeeds when it is intuitive, accessible, dependable, and fit-for-purpose. But all too often, smart care devices are rolled out without full consideration of their real-world usability, data relevance, or long-term support structure.

What the NARI Framework Covers Well

The NARI Implementation Framework rightly acknowledges many practical realities of deploying technology in aged care environments. It offers guidance on:

Usability and design considerations for aged care clients
The importance of privacy, security, and trust
Building in training and technical support for users
Recognising the need for fit with home environments and personal routines

These are all essential ingredients in supporting successful implementation and building user confidence.

What the NARI Framework Does Not Cover (in relation to Technology Domain Gaps)

Interoperability and integration are barely mentioned.The NARI Framework says little about how devices or platforms should connect to existing systems, whether client records, service management platforms, or emergency response protocols. Yet interoperability is often the difference between isolated pilots and scalable, sustainable care models.
The risk of vendor lock-in and supply fragility is overlooked.Technology is treated as static and self-contained. There is no guidance on choosing between proprietary vs open systems, or how to assess the long-term viability of niche suppliers. When vendors go out of business or stop supporting legacy products, care continuity is jeopardised.
The burden of cognitive load and user effort is underplayed.The framework encourages usability but doesn’t adequately consider the technical, emotional, or cognitive workload technology imposes on older adults, carers, or staff. Tools that demand too much configuration, interpretation, or workaround will be quietly abandoned, even if they are technically functional.
Data relevance and clinical utility are not explored.Smart care technologies often generate streams of data, but without clear relevance to care outcomes or clinical decision-making. The framework does not address how that data should be interpreted, filtered, or acted on by carers, families, or allied health professionals.
There’s no guidance on asset and lifecycle management or upgrade paths.Technologies age. Software updates fail. Hardware breaks. The framework offers no support for managing technology lifecycles, from setup to decommissioning. There is no consideration of when to replace, re-evaluate, re-use or retire a device, leaving services vulnerable to drift or tech fatigue.

Real-World Example: When Technology Increases Anxiety

As a carer, imagine receiving too many alerts a day from your 85-year-old parent’s fall detection device, most of them false alarms. None of the alerts are connected to the care provider’s system, so every notification leaves you wondering: “Is this the one I can ignore, or the one I’ll regret missing?”

Instead of reducing anxiety, technology can add to it. This is alert fatigue, and it erodes trust, not just in the device, but in the entire care ecosystem it’s meant to support.

Take away: The Product Is the Experience

You can have great support, funding, and intention, but if the product experience is poor, none of it matters.

“Don’t choose technology simply because a client now has funding for it. Select technology as part of a broader care technology strategy—one that’s built to support groups of clients with shared care needs, using pre-approved, tested, and integrated solutions that align with your service model and workforce capacity.”

Care providers must start by asking better questions about usability, sustainability, and clinical alignment, not just at the pilot stage, but at every point in the technology lifecycle. Because when a product fails to fit the workflow, the context, or the user, it fails, full stop.

Next Steps: Ask Questions Up Front to get better care technology adoption

As technology becomes more embedded in aged care, the second question after “Is it funded?” must be:

Is this technology dependable, usable, and sustainable in the real world—for this person, in this context, over time?

In Article 3, we’ll explore the next influence/domain: The Value Proposition—and why success depends not just on how a tool works, but what it’s worth to those who use and deliver it.

Until then, I invite you to reflect:

Have you seen a product that generated plenty of data, but it wasn’t clear how any of it actually helped improve care outcomes or support better decisions?
What’s your approach to vetting suppliers and selecting products?
Is your team set up to evaluate not just what a product does, but what it takes to use?

Let’s keep the conversation going, because good tech alone isn’t good enough.

Article 2/7: By Hubert van Dalen, Managing Director of eHomeCare, where he advises on the implementation of smart care technologies across the health, aged care, and disability sectors.