Abstract
The decision to adopt a new technology in the health care setting is merely the first step in an implementation journey. Whereas some new technologies are readily embraced by those who must use them, most are met with some resistance. In some cases, members of diverse groups - including administrators, clinicians, and technicians - must work together for a new technology to take hold effectively, becoming incorporated into routine practice in an organization. This article reports on a qualitative study of hospitals adopting a new technology for minimally invasive cardiac surgery that uncovered substantial differences in both approach and implementation success. Four case studies are presented to illustrate distinct, tacit frames held by the leaders of each implementation project and how these influenced the team learning process and, in turn, implementation success.
About
Abstract
The decision to adopt a new technology in the health care setting is merely the first step in an implementation journey. Whereas some new technologies are readily embraced by those who must use them, most are met with some resistance. In some cases, members of diverse groups - including administrators, clinicians, and technicians - must work together for a new technology to take hold effectively, becoming incorporated into routine practice in an organization. This article reports on a qualitative study of hospitals adopting a new technology for minimally invasive cardiac surgery that uncovered substantial differences in both approach and implementation success. Four case studies are presented to illustrate distinct, tacit frames held by the leaders of each implementation project and how these influenced the team learning process and, in turn, implementation success.