IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4245-d371253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes

Author

Listed:
  • Fangyuan Chang

    (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-142 58 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Andrea Eriksson

    (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-142 58 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Britt Östlund

    (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-142 58 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

Recent studies prove that when implementing new technology technology-driven and one-size-fits-all approaches are problematic. This study focuses on the process of implementing personal emergency response system (PERS) at nursing homes. The aim is to understand why the implementation of PERS has not met initial expectations. Multiple methods were used in two Swedish nursing homes, including document analysis, questionnaires ( n = 42), participant observation (67 h), and individual interviews ( n = 12). A logic model was used to ascertain the discrepancies that emerged between expected and actual implementation, and the domestication theory was used to discuss the underlying meanings of the discrepancies. The discrepancies primarily focused on staff competence, system readiness, work routines, and implementation duration. Corresponding reasons were largely relevant to management issues regarding training, the procurement systems, individual and collective responsibilities as well as invisible work. The uptake of technology in daily practice is far more nuanced than a technology implementation plan might imply. We point out the importance of preparing for implementation, adjusting to new practices, and leaving space and time for facilitating implementation. The findings will be of use to implementers, service providers, and organizational managers to evaluate various measures in the implementation process, enabling them to perform technology implementation faster and more efficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • Fangyuan Chang & Andrea Eriksson & Britt Östlund, 2020. "Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4245-:d:371253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4245/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4245/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Renger, Ralph & Foltysova, Jirina & Becker, Karin L. & Souvannasacd, Eric, 2015. "The power of the context map: Designing realistic outcome evaluation strategies and other unanticipated benefits," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 118-125.
    2. Andreassen, Hege K. & Kjekshus, Lars Erik & Tjora, Aksel, 2015. "Survival of the project: A case study of ICT innovation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 62-69.
    3. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    4. Barnett, E. & Casper, M., 2001. "A definition of"social environment" [1]," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(3), pages 465-465.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    2. Newton-Levinson, Anna & Higdon, Megan & Sales, Jessica & Gaydos, Laurie & Rochat, Roger, 2020. "Context matters: Using mixed methods timelines to provide an accessible and integrated visual for complex program evaluation data," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    4. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    5. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    6. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    8. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    9. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    10. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    11. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    12. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    13. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Chanel Bjanca V. Balinbin & Krystina Trizia R. Balatbat & Alyssa Nicolette B. Balayan & Maria Isabel C. Balcueva & Mary Grace B. Balicat & Thea Arabelle S. Balidoy & John Rey B. Macindo & Gian Carlo S, 2020. "Occupational determinants of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among Filipino registered nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 955-963, March.
    15. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    16. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.
    17. Louise R. Manfredi & Meriel Stokoe & Rebecca Kelly & Seyeon Lee, 2021. "Teaching Sustainable Responsibility through Informal Undergraduate Design Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.
    18. Daniel Nigohosyan & Albena Vutsova, 2018. "The 2014–2020 European Regional Development Fund Indicators: The Incomplete Evolution," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 559-577, June.
    19. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    20. Voeten, J. & Naudé, Wim, 2013. "Internal Regulation of Innovation Externalities for Development : Lessons from Vietnam," Other publications TiSEM fcbdcd1e-ccf9-4b33-952d-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4245-:d:371253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.