Adopt, adapt, or abandon technology-supported person-centred care initiatives: healthcare providers' beliefs matter.

BACKGROUND: Technology support and person-centred care are the new mantra for healthcare programmes in Western societies. While few argue with the overarching philosophy of person-centred care or the potential of information technologies, there is less agreement on how to make them a reality in everyday clinical practice. In this paper, we investigate how individual healthcare providers at four innovation arenas in Scandinavia experienced the implementation of technology-supported person-centred care for people with long-term care needs by using the new analytical framework nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) of health and care technologies. We also discuss the usability and sensitivity of the NASSS framework for those seeking to plan, implement, and evaluate technology-supported healthcare programmes. This study is part of an interdisciplinary research and development project called Patients and Professionals in Partnership (2016-2020). It originates at one of ten work packages in this project. METHOD: The main data consist of ethnographic field observations at the four innovation arenas and 29 interviews with involved healthcare providers. To ensure continuous updates and status on work in the four innovation arenas, we have also participated in a total of six annual network meetings arranged by the project. RESULTS: While the NASSS framework is very useful for identifying and communicating challenges with the adoption and spread of technology-supported person-centred care initiatives, we found it less sensitive towards capturing the dedication, enthusiasm, and passion for care transformation that we found among the healthcare providers in our study. When it comes to technology-supported person-centred care, the point of no return has passed for the involved healthcare providers. To them, it is already a definite part of the future of healthcare services. How to overcome barriers and obstacles is pragmatically approached. CONCLUSION: Increased knowledge about healthcare providers and their visions as potential assets for care transformation might be critical for those seeking to plan, implement, and evaluate technology-supported healthcare programmes.

Beyond the Point of No Return: A Discourse Analysis of Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Digitally Supported Person-Centred, Integrated, and Proactive Care.

Most countries are facing a common challenge: a rise in the number of chronically ill patients and limited medical resources. The combination of digital support and the principles of person-centred, integrated, and proactive care (Digi-PIP care) services constitutes the most ambitious initiative for patients with long-term needs. While there is research on digital support, person-centred, integrated, and proactive care, the combination of these components has been less explored. The data set consisted of 29 qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals involved in four Nordic Digi-PIP care initiatives. Building on prevailing discourses on the modernisation of healthcare, we used discourse analysis to determine how the professionals discussed their perceptions and experiences of the care transformation initiatives. We identified four discourses illustrating that, despite challenges with adoption, the vision of Digi-PIP care was strongly embedded among participants across professions and contexts. In contrast to the discourses on their separate components, the emergent discourses on Digi-PIP care were surprisingly consistent. The new care model was found to be beneficial for patients, healthcare professionals, and society. Digitalisation may vitalise and even catalyse person-centred, integrated, and proactive practices. To the employees involved, Digi-PIP has moved beyond the point of no return; it is the future of modern healthcare.