The Polarization of Clinician and Service Staff Perspectives After the Use of Health Information Technology in Youth Mental Health Services: Implementation and Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND: Highly personalized care is substantially improved by technology platforms that assess and track patient outcomes. However, evidence regarding how to successfully implement technology in real-world mental health settings is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to naturalistically monitor how a health information technology (HIT) platform was used within 2 real-world mental health service settings to gain practical insights into how HIT can be implemented and sustained to improve mental health service delivery. METHODS: An HIT (The Innowell Platform) was naturally implemented in 2 youth mental health services in Sydney, Australia. Web-based surveys (n=19) and implementation logs were used to investigate staff attitudes toward technology before and after implementation. Descriptive statistics were used to track staff attitudes over time, whereas qualitative thematic analysis was used to explore implementation log data to gain practical insights into useful implementation strategies in real-world settings. RESULTS: After the implementation, the staff were nearly 3 times more likely to agree that the HIT would improve care for their clients (3/12, 25% agreed before the implementation compared with 7/10, 70% after the implementation). Despite this, there was also an increase in the number of staff who disagreed that the HIT would improve care (from 1/12, 8% to 2/10, 20%). There was also decreased uncertainty (from 6/12, 50% to 3/10, 30%) about the willingness of the service to implement the technology for its intended purpose, with similar increases in the number of staff who agreed and disagreed with this statement. Staff were more likely to be uncertain about whether colleagues in my service are receptive to changes in clinical processes (not sure rose from 5/12, 42% to 7/10, 70%). They were also more likely to report that their service already provides the best mental health care (agreement rose from 7/12, 58% to 8/10, 80%). After the implementation, a greater proportion of participants reported that the HIT enabled shared or collaborative decision-making with young people (2/10, 20%, compared with 1/12, 8%), enabled clients to proactively work on their mental health care through digital technologies (3/10, 30%, compared with 2/12, 16%), and improved their response to suicidal risk (4/10, 40% compared with 3/12, 25%). CONCLUSIONS: This study raises important questions about why clinicians, who have the same training and support in using technology, develop more polarized opinions on its usefulness after implementation. It seems that the uptake of HIT is heavily influenced by a clinician’s underlying beliefs and attitudes toward clinical practice in general as well as the role of technology, rather than their knowledge or the ease of use of the HIT in question.