A call to (re)integrate healthcare professionals
into digitalized care
A paper on the influence of a physician’s active involvement in the development of technological
innovations can lead to quality improvements in digitalized healthcare
JM Ijlstra
Student number: -
Course: Quality & Safety
Tutor: -
Deadline: 1.12.2022
Words: 1989
, Introduction
Demographic changes such as our aging population and the expanding group of patients with
chronic conditions are leading to increased demands in healthcare, for example leading to
emergency department crowding amongst other concerns (Coster et al., 2017). However, supply is
not following the increased demand for care as physician workforce shortages are expected to
skyrocket (Zhang et al., 2020). In an effort to manage demands inside hospitals, a range of
healthcare services are being digitalized to distribute care (Ricciardi et al., 2019). Examples of
healthcare digitalization include home monitoring of patients, electronic patient dossiers, and the
use of artificial intelligence in the visualization of diagnostic devices. Thus healthcare digitalization
seems like a promising innovation to make healthcare more efficient, resulting in certain physicians
embracing these new systems. On the other hand, physicians taking a more critical approach stress
that the implementation of new technologies poses a threat to their professional autonomy and
leads to unintended consequences through system errors (Ash et al., 2003; Levay & Waks, 2009).
This paper will clarify how physicians value technological innovations in light of autonomy and how
they can play a role in improving the quality and safety of technological innovations. This gives rise
to the research question: “How can healthcare professionals’ active involvement in technology
innovations influence quality improvements in digitalized care?”
Conceptual framework
Cultural categorization is a process in which individuals give shape to new phenomena by placing
them within cultural borders, such as the symbolic order: natural or man-made (Smits, 2006). When
a new phenomenon arises, such as technological innovation, it may not completely fit within a
physician’s cultural category, making it a matter-out-of-place. This could lead to controversial
emotional reactions varying from interest to aversion. Smits (2006) rephrases the latter reaction as
viewing technological innovations as ‘monsters’, hence coining the monster theory, and describes
how individuals present differing coping mechanisms to deal with new phenomena. In this light,
healthcare professionals’ initial reaction to new technologies may be negative as these innovations
may be perceived as a threat to their professional autonomy (Levay & Waks, 2009). This approach
gives rise to behaviors of resistance in which the so-called monster would be expelled. In other
words, there would be defiance towards the implementation of new technological innovations
(Smits, 2006).
Contrastingly, monsters may also wholeheartedly be embraced, weakening their
professional influence, while potential dangers of the innovations wouldn’t be addressed (Levay &
Waks, 2009; Smits, 2006). Technological innovations could be seen in an overly optimistic light while
into digitalized care
A paper on the influence of a physician’s active involvement in the development of technological
innovations can lead to quality improvements in digitalized healthcare
JM Ijlstra
Student number: -
Course: Quality & Safety
Tutor: -
Deadline: 1.12.2022
Words: 1989
, Introduction
Demographic changes such as our aging population and the expanding group of patients with
chronic conditions are leading to increased demands in healthcare, for example leading to
emergency department crowding amongst other concerns (Coster et al., 2017). However, supply is
not following the increased demand for care as physician workforce shortages are expected to
skyrocket (Zhang et al., 2020). In an effort to manage demands inside hospitals, a range of
healthcare services are being digitalized to distribute care (Ricciardi et al., 2019). Examples of
healthcare digitalization include home monitoring of patients, electronic patient dossiers, and the
use of artificial intelligence in the visualization of diagnostic devices. Thus healthcare digitalization
seems like a promising innovation to make healthcare more efficient, resulting in certain physicians
embracing these new systems. On the other hand, physicians taking a more critical approach stress
that the implementation of new technologies poses a threat to their professional autonomy and
leads to unintended consequences through system errors (Ash et al., 2003; Levay & Waks, 2009).
This paper will clarify how physicians value technological innovations in light of autonomy and how
they can play a role in improving the quality and safety of technological innovations. This gives rise
to the research question: “How can healthcare professionals’ active involvement in technology
innovations influence quality improvements in digitalized care?”
Conceptual framework
Cultural categorization is a process in which individuals give shape to new phenomena by placing
them within cultural borders, such as the symbolic order: natural or man-made (Smits, 2006). When
a new phenomenon arises, such as technological innovation, it may not completely fit within a
physician’s cultural category, making it a matter-out-of-place. This could lead to controversial
emotional reactions varying from interest to aversion. Smits (2006) rephrases the latter reaction as
viewing technological innovations as ‘monsters’, hence coining the monster theory, and describes
how individuals present differing coping mechanisms to deal with new phenomena. In this light,
healthcare professionals’ initial reaction to new technologies may be negative as these innovations
may be perceived as a threat to their professional autonomy (Levay & Waks, 2009). This approach
gives rise to behaviors of resistance in which the so-called monster would be expelled. In other
words, there would be defiance towards the implementation of new technological innovations
(Smits, 2006).
Contrastingly, monsters may also wholeheartedly be embraced, weakening their
professional influence, while potential dangers of the innovations wouldn’t be addressed (Levay &
Waks, 2009; Smits, 2006). Technological innovations could be seen in an overly optimistic light while
