Healthcare leaders have no shortage of technology options. Less certain is whether those options will deliver value where they are used. Relationships, demonstrations, and specifications may identify a promising solution; none proves it will solve a hospital's problem. A technology can perform exactly as advertised and still fail the organization that purchased it. The resulting cost and disruption may extend far beyond its purchase price.
Start with the problem
Before evaluating products, define the problem, the baseline, and the intended improvement. Is the priority environmental performance, operating room delays, or resilience? Facilities, clinical operations, infection prevention, engineering, and finance should help frame the decision. Each sees constraints another might miss. Without agreement on the need, a compelling feature can masquerade as a solution.
Demand evidence that applies
A reported 99% contaminant reduction in a controlled chamber may be accurate. It does not establish equivalent performance in an occupied patient room with different ventilation, occupancy, and clinical activity. Ask what was measured, under which conditions, and by whom.
Likewise, an AI platform may accurately detect operating room events without improving utilization when staffing, scheduling, and recovery capacity still limit throughput. In both cases, technical capability must be distinguished from operational value.
Independent scientific validation is not about challenging innovation. It establishes what the evidence supports, whether performance applies to the intended environment, and which benefits are reasonable to expect. Where warranted, independent testing gives buyers defensible grounds for investment and responsible manufacturers credible evidence of where their products fit.
Evaluate fit and accountability
Technology must work within the building and the workflow. Architects, engineers, facilities leaders, and clinical teams should assess suitability before selection. For a monitoring system, who responds when an alert appears? More data without a clear response can create work, not improvement.
Evaluate total ownership costs: installation, integration, training, upkeep, and staff time. Safety and resilience may justify investment without a straightforward financial return, but the case still needs a clear rationale.
Define success before purchase. Establish baseline measures, assign accountability, and determine when results will be reviewed. A pilot shows potential; sustained performance under everyday conditions supports wider adoption.
Healthcare should not be reluctant to adopt new technology. It should be demanding about the case for adoption.
Before the next investment is approved, leaders should ask themselves a harder question: Could we defend this decision based on the evidence, the operational realities of our facility, and the outcomes we expect to achieve, without relying on the strength of the sales presentation?
If the answer is uncertain, there is more work to do.
Innovation deserves consideration. Investment requires justification. And lasting value must be demonstrated, not simply promised.
References
- World Health Organization. (2025). Health technology assessment of medical devices (2nd ed.). World Health Organization. ISBN 978-92-4-011087-8. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240110878
- Schoelles, K., Umscheid, C. A., Lin, J. S., et al. (2017). A framework for conceptualizing evidence needs of health systems (AHRQ Publication No. 18-EHC004-EF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCWHITEPAPER3
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2003, updated 2019). Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/environmental-control/index.html
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2019). About learning health systems. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.ahrq.gov/learning-health-systems/about.html
- Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
