The LeadingAge Survey that provides no valuable information and what I hope they ask next time.
I hate writing articles like this, because I love LeadingAge and I know Ziegler is a fine fine organization, but I don’t get the point of their technology survey.
Here are the listed highlights:
- Most organizations (91.7%) provide residents with access to Internet, community portal and social-connectedness sites.
- Safety technologies: These organizations have high adoption rates for wander management technologies (88%) and emergency response systems (82.6%).
- Four out of 10 are implementing automatic fall detectors.
- Three-quarters have adopted and are using electronic medical records and electronic health records.
- 83% have point-of-care technologies in at least some of their communities.
“LZ 100 providers we surveyed show strong commitment to safety, social connectedness and electronic documentation technologies” said Majd Alwan, senior vice president of technology at LeadingAge and executive director of CAST. “We hope and expect to see higher utilization of health information exchange with other providers to facilitate care coordination across settings, and higher adoption rates for telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and telecare in the future.”
Slicing and Dicing
I am a huge fan of technology. I own, computers, fax machines, printers, smart phones, GPS’s, digital cameras, walkie talkies and more than half a dozen Android Tablets. I have even been hugely tempted to pony up $1,500 for my own Google Glass device. I applaud what Majd Alwan at CAST is doing to advance technology innovation and adoption in senior care. I think taking a hard look at the level of technology adoption in senior living is a great idea.
I just don’t get the point of this survey.
It was sent to the Zielger LeadingAge 100 list, which is made up of the 100 largest not-for-profit senior living providers in the United States. Here is why I don’t get it:
- The survey shows widespread adoption of EHR/EMR, which sounds terrific except that if an organization has a single skilled nursing facility (where the technology is mandated) it implies that the technology adoption is widespread through the organization and this is likely untrue.
- If a single community in these large multi-property organizations has one building with a single maglock delayed access door it is considered to have wander management technology for the whole organization.
- If a single community has one dial-up access point in one common area it counts the same as having pervasive WiFi in all their communities.
- According to the study there is a high adoption rate for emergency response and yet this can be anything from a primitive 1940s/50/60’s light and buzzer system to a state-of-the-art computer-based wired and wireless system.
I wish Leading Age and Ziegler had done a better job of detailing on a building-by-building basis what facilities and communities are using. Perhaps even better for the industry would be a survey that takes a hard look at what kinds of technology is actually working in these communities to improve operations, resident safety and the lives of seniors.
What I Wish They Had Asked
For what it is worth, here are a few questions/issues I would love to see addressed:
- What kinds of technologies and techniques are communities using to deal with elopement?
- What do you like about your existing call system and what do you wish it would do better?
- How well does your staff like your point of care technologies and how did you get staff on board?
- What process did you use for selecting the technologies you are using?
- What technologies did you reject and why?
What questions would you like to see asked?
If you like this article (or even if you don’t) it would be a great honor to have you subscribe to our mailing list HERE.
Thank you for your article and observations.
If I understand this correctly, this survey was performed with not-for-profit providers being the only survey participants. Because of this, the author (whether it was suggested to her or not) led with what I feel is a misleading headline. How does one know that “large, not-for-profit providers of aging services are leaders in the adoption of technology” when you do not have other types of providers to which to compare them?
While I agree that the questions you posed might be options for inclusion in the survey, the responses to these are primarily qualitative in nature (as opposed to quantitative) and that requires a higher level of expertise to help draw out statistical figures. Based on the responses provided, I would venture to guess the survey contained a majority of quantitative questions which require less time and thought.
Veronica: I am not terribly troubled by targeting not-for-profit providers. LeadingAge exists to support that segment of the marketplace and for a variety of reasons, the not-for-profit world has done more innovation than the for profit world (an article coming on this topic sometime this year). I just don’t think the study really tells us very much about the level of technology adoption or technology leadership. That being said I am guessing the technology adoption rates for large for profit and not for profit organizations are pretty similar.
Hi Steve,
I’m not troubled at all by the targeting of the not-for-profit providers. Just to clarify, I was referring to the language used in the headline/lead paragraph. I thought it implied non-profits were more of a leader with use of technology than for-profit providers and my point was how would that be known if for-profit providers were not included.
Thanks,
Veronica
I think it was selective and did not look at all of the technologies within the senior space. I love the questions you added. I think it would be interesting to know how they selected who they did.
Steve,
Thank you for taking the time to review and critique the first CAST-Ziegler Technology Adoption and Utilization Survey. Critique and feedback drive continuous improvements, and the questions you pose are greatly appreciated as they give us many ideas for future efforts to understand and document the use of technology in Senior Housing environments.
As I said to you during our interview, we recognize and are very transparent about the scope and methodology of our study, and the effect of conducting this survey at the corporate, rather than the building/ community level. We clearly stated in the full report that this methodology gives a higher perceived adoption rate than the actual rate at the community/ building level. As I also pointed out during our conversation, collecting detailed data at the building/ community level that you and we both seek means significantly higher time commitment needed from providers, and hence it becomes difficult to get the vast majority of participants to complete the survey. This survey is a classical case of compromise between detailed information from a few participants, which one cannot generalize, vs. less detailed information from almost all participants that one can generalize.
Some of your suggested questions would require asking about the specific technology providers are using (including brand and even model), which would make the survey much longer and would require the respondent to have specific technical knowledge. This may, again, make the survey less likely to be fully and accurately completed by the vast majority of organizations within a reasonable time frame.
There is much work to be done to leverage the capability of technology to transform long-term services and supports. But, as our survey clearly shows, LZ-100 organizations are well aware of these technologies and are well on their way in deploying these technologies in their communities.
Again, CAST would welcome ideas from you and providers on how to adjust the survey and we are grateful to Senior Housing Forum for providing us a platform to extend this message. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to also invite your readership to review the EHR and Telehealth tools that CAST produced last year to give us feedback for improvements and provide us with guidance on future tools. More information about the tools and links to the two dedicated feedback survey instruments can be found in this article: http://www.leadingage.org/Tell_CAST_What_You_Think_of_our_Online_Technology_Selection_Tools.aspx.
Sincerely,
Majd Alwan.
Majd, thanks for joining the conversation. As you know I am a big fan of LeadingAge and the things you are doing at CAST. I appreciate your pointing readers to the tools and resources you have developed.
Steve
From LinkedIn Groups
I appreciate LeadingAge for doing this survey. As long term/post-acute care is making the turn in technology toward Electronic Health Records, it is helpful to share what providers are doing and raise awareness. However, I see that there is a wide range of perceptions among providers about their use of EHR
By Michael Smith
Thanks, Steve. I agree with Michael’s comment. LeadingAge and CAST are trying hard to narrow the perception gap and to drive the adoption and proper utilization of these technologies. We are doing so through a broad array of articles, whitepapers, selection matrices/ tools, and provider case studies showing the impacts these technologies have on efficiency and outcomes.
As we all know, education, awareness and culture change take time. Thanks for all you’re doing on all these fronts.
Majd.