The Technology: Why It Can Make or Break Smart Care Adoption
"Technology can enable better care, but only when it is reliable, usable, integrated and sustainable within the environments where care is delivered."
Technology is frequently presented as the solution to some of the aged care sector's most persistent challenges. Remote monitoring promises greater safety and independence, digital platforms offer more coordinated services, and assistive technologies can help people maintain their quality of life.
Yet technology that performs impressively during a demonstration or pilot does not necessarily deliver the same results in everyday care.
A device may function correctly but generate information that nobody can interpret. A platform may offer extensive capabilities but require staff to duplicate information across disconnected systems. A monitoring solution may provide reassurance initially, only to become a source of frustration when unreliable alerts undermine confidence.
These challenges illustrate an important distinction: a technically capable product is not necessarily an effective care technology solution.
In Article 1 - Why Care Technology Adoption Fails], we introduced the NASSS framework and its seven influences on technology adoption. The Article 2 - The Condition explored the first domain, why technology must respond to individual care needs and circumstances.
This article examines the second domain: The Technology.
WHAT DOES THE TECHNOLOGY DOMAIN CONSIDER?
The NASSS framework examines the characteristics of technology that influence whether it can be successfully adopted, scaled and sustained in real-world care environments.[1]
It identifies four interconnected dimensions:
Material features: The technology's usability, reliability, functionality and adaptability.
Knowledge generated: The quality, relevance and interpretability of the information produced.
Knowledge and support required: The skills, effort and technical assistance needed to operate the solution.
Supply and vendor model: The sustainability of the technology, its supplier and associated support arrangements.
Together, these dimensions encourage providers to look beyond product specifications and consider what is required to make technology effective in practice.
A solution should not be assessed solely on what it can do, but on how reliably it performs, how easily people can use it, how its information supports care decisions and whether it can be sustained over time.
USABILITY IS MORE THAN AN INTUITIVE INTERFACE
Technology usability is often reduced to the simplicity of a screen, application or device. In care environments, usability extends considerably further.
People receiving care may have different levels of digital confidence, cognitive capability, dexterity, vision or hearing. Frontline workers operate under time pressures and may need to use multiple systems throughout their shifts.
A technology solution must accommodate these realities without creating unnecessary complexity.
For example, a personal safety device may appear straightforward but require frequent charging, complicated configuration or manual intervention following connectivity failures.
Similarly, a digital care application may provide comprehensive functionality but demand too many steps to complete routine activities.
These additional demands increase the cognitive and operational effort required from users. Over time, they can reduce confidence, encourage workarounds or result in technology being abandoned.
Providers should therefore assess usability through realistic scenarios involving the people expected to use and support the technology.
The relevant question is not simply whether users can operate the technology, but whether they can do so consistently and confidently within their everyday routines.
DATA IS ONLY VALUABLE WHEN IT SUPPORTS DECISIONS
Connected care technologies can generate substantial volumes of information, including movement patterns, activity levels, environmental conditions and alerts about potential changes in wellbeing.
However, collecting information does not automatically improve care.
The value depends on whether that information is accurate, relevant, understandable and connected to an appropriate response.
Consider a remote monitoring solution that identifies changes in an older person's daily activity.
Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a meaningful change, who should interpret the information and when intervention is appropriate, the data may have limited practical value.
Poorly configured systems can also generate excessive alerts.
Imagine a family member receiving repeated notifications from a fall-detection device, many of which turn out to be false alarms. Each alert creates uncertainty about whether immediate action is required.
Instead of providing reassurance, the technology increases anxiety.
This phenomenon, commonly described as alert fatigue, can erode confidence and reduce responsiveness to genuinely important events.
Providers must therefore evaluate not only what information technology generates, but how that information will support decisions, care coordination and timely intervention.
More data does not necessarily mean better care. Relevant information, interpreted and acted upon appropriately, creates value.
INTEGRATION DETERMINES WHETHER TECHNOLOGY BECOMES PART OF CARE
One of the most significant barriers to sustainable technology adoption is the inability to integrate solutions into existing systems and operational processes.
A remote monitoring platform may function independently but provide little value to frontline teams if alerts and observations remain disconnected from care records, service management systems or established response procedures.
Staff may need to access separate applications, manually transfer information or maintain duplicate records.
These additional activities increase workload, introduce opportunities for error and reduce the efficiency benefits technology was intended to deliver.
Integration is therefore not simply a technical consideration. It is an operational requirement.
Providers should understand how technology will exchange information, support existing workflows and enable coordinated responses across care teams.
This includes assessing interoperability, data standards, integration interfaces, information security and the responsibilities of different systems.
Not every solution requires complex technical integration. However, every solution requires clarity about how its information and activities connect with the broader care delivery model.
Technology should become part of how care is delivered, not another disconnected system that staff must manage.
THE HIDDEN COST OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT
Technology procurement decisions frequently focus on purchase prices, subscription fees and implementation costs.
However, the effort required to operate and maintain technology can be equally significant.
Devices may require installation, configuration, connectivity troubleshooting, software updates, battery replacement and ongoing user assistance.
These activities become particularly challenging when technology is deployed across multiple residential facilities or geographically dispersed home care services.
For example, a device that requires only occasional technical assistance during a pilot may create substantial support demand when deployed to hundreds of care recipients.
Without an appropriate support model, frontline workers may become responsible for resolving technical issues outside their normal responsibilities.
Providers should therefore consider the complete operational burden, including support responsibilities, service levels, maintenance requirements and the skills needed to sustain the solution.
This assessment should form part of the business case rather than being deferred until implementation.
VENDOR DEPENDENCY AND LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY
Care technology investments can create dependencies on specialist suppliers, proprietary platforms and connected services.
These dependencies introduce risks that may not be apparent during initial product evaluation.
A supplier may discontinue a device, change its pricing model, withdraw support for older products or modify the availability of integration services.
A proprietary platform may make it difficult to transfer information or migrate to alternative solutions.
For care providers, these issues can affect more than technology expenditure. They may disrupt established workflows or compromise continuity of technology-supported services.
Vendor evaluation should therefore consider financial and operational stability, product roadmaps, support arrangements, interoperability and the ability to transition away from a solution when necessary.
Contractual arrangements should address data ownership, access, portability, service continuity and exit provisions.
A technology solution is only sustainable when the organisation can manage its dependencies and maintain control over its long-term operating arrangements.
TECHNOLOGY REQUIRES LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT
Technology adoption does not end when a device is installed or a platform becomes operational.
Hardware ages, software changes, security vulnerabilities emerge and user requirements evolve.
Providers need processes for maintaining, updating, reassessing and eventually replacing technology.
This includes understanding expected product lifespans, warranty arrangements, software support periods, replacement costs and the implications of discontinued products.
For organisations operating at scale, asset management becomes particularly important.
Without visibility of deployed devices, software versions, ownership and maintenance requirements, providers may struggle to maintain consistent service quality or respond effectively to technical failures.
Lifecycle planning also creates opportunities to review whether technology continues to meet care needs and deliver its intended benefits.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR PROVIDER LEADERSHIP
The technology domain is relevant across residential aged care, in-home care, independent living and disability services.
Although the operating environments differ, the underlying challenge remains consistent: selecting technologies that can function reliably, integrate into care delivery and remain sustainable as services evolve.
For executives and boards, technology evaluation should extend beyond functionality, price and vendor demonstrations.
In practical terms, provider leadership should:
Evaluate real-world usability through testing involving care recipients, frontline workers and operational teams.
Establish clear information requirements so technology-generated data supports meaningful care decisions and appropriate responses.
Assess integration and interoperability before procurement, including how solutions connect with existing systems and workflows.
Understand the full operating cost, including technical support, maintenance, training and ongoing administration.
Manage vendor and lifecycle risks through appropriate governance, contractual protections and long-term technology planning.
These considerations should form part of a deliberate care technology strategy rather than being addressed independently for each new product.
Providers can improve consistency and reduce operational complexity by establishing a portfolio of evaluated, approved and supported technologies suitable for groups of people with similar care needs.
Individual deployment decisions can then focus on selecting and configuring the most appropriate solution for each person.
Before committing to the next technology investment, provider leadership should ask:
Is this technology dependable, usable, integrated and sustainable in the real world - for the people we support, within our operating model and over time?
Funding may make technology accessible, and innovation may make it attractive. But sustainable value depends on selecting solutions that work effectively within the realities of care delivery.
Good technology is not defined by what it promises, but by what it consistently enables.
ABOUT THIS SERIES
Part 3 of eight in the eHomeCare series exploring the seven influences on care technology adoption.
Based on the NASSS framework, this series examines the factors influencing whether technology is adopted, abandoned, scaled or sustained in real-world care environments. Each article explores one of the seven domains and its implications for Australian aged care and disability providers.
Series introduction: Article 1 - Why Care Technology Adoption Fails
Previous article: Article 2 - The Condition
Next article: Article 4 - The Value Proposition
Hubert van Dalen is the founder of eHomeCare, providing independent digital strategy, governance, technology and transformation advisory services to Australian aged care and disability providers.
References
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., et al. (2017). Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367. Original NASSS research
Comments