What turns digital health investment into better patient experiences?

Healthcare has invested heavily in digital transformation, with another wave of investment now forming around AI. But when that investment is intended to improve care, access or communication, the technology creates the opportunity for a better patient experience.

Whether that value reaches patients depends on what happens around the technology: how it is designed, implemented, integrated into existing systems and workflows, and ultimately adopted by patients and clinicians. Buying digital capability and realising digital value are two different stages of the same investment.

Healthcare is investing in digital transformation, but is it creating value?

McKinsey’s 2024 survey of 200 global health system executives illustrates the challenge. Nearly 90% viewed digital and AI transformation as a high or top organisational priority, yet 75% said their organisations lacked sufficient planning or resources to deliver on that priority. Investment priorities also did not always align with the areas executives believed could have the greatest impact.

This matters because technology investment is only the starting point. The value of that investment depends on what happens once the technology enters clinical and patient environments.

A 2024 systematic review of digital hospitals makes the gap particularly clear. Of 61 studies, 90% examined clinician experience, while only 16% examined patient experience. Clinicians generally valued improved access to information, but qualitative evidence also highlighted tensions related to inefficient workflows, clinician-patient interactions, workload, and privacy. Evidence linking digital hospitals directly to patient satisfaction was positive in some areas, but remained weak overall.

What determines whether digital health technology is actually adopted?

One explanation comes from a framework developed long before the current AI cycle. The PRISM model proposed by Aqil, Lippeveld and Hozumi treats information system performance as the product of technical, behavioural and organisational factors.

Wang and colleagues subsequently applied this thinking to digital patient experience. Their umbrella review of 45 reviews similarly found that patient experience was influenced by factors relating to the patient, the technology and the environment in which care was delivered.

The human side of digital investment is easy to overlook. Patients vary in how comfortable they are with technology and how easily they can integrate another digital tool into their everyday lives. Clinicians face many of the same challenges, often in a much more pressured environment.

Iyanna and colleagues found that clinical tasks, patient care and established ways of working can all make new technology harder to adopt. Even when a tool appears useful, it may struggle to gain traction if it does not fit naturally into how people work.

A 2025 systematic review led by Patel found a similar pattern. Digital tools were more likely to succeed when they fitted existing workflows, offered clear value, were supported by appropriate training, and the organisation was ready for change. Disrupted workflows and added mental effort made adoption harder.

This matters commercially because adoption is part of the return on investment. A technology may be successfully implemented, but if people do not continue to use it, the organisation will not realise its full value.

How does digital maturity affect patient experience?

The technology itself is only part of the picture. What matters to patients is whether it helps create a more connected experience of care.

Snowdon and colleagues found that highly digitally mature US hospitals had 1.8 to 2.24 times the odds of higher patient ratings for communication than hospitals with the lowest digital maturity. However, hospital characteristics also influenced the results, suggesting that technology works within a much wider care environment.

One way digital maturity can make a difference is by improving the flow of information between people and services. But connecting systems is only useful if the information they share has enough context to support care, including where it came from and how it relates to the patient.

The OECD’s PaRIS research shows why this matters. Patients who had to repeat information that should already have been available in their health records reported poorer experiences. Ratings for quality and trust were around 15 percentage points lower, while ratings for person-centred care among people with chronic conditions were around 20 percentage points lower.

For patients, this makes interoperability very practical. It can be as simple as whether the next clinician already knows their history.

Turning patient data into measurable value

Collecting information is not enough. What matters is how organisations use it to improve care.

Bonsel and colleagues reviewed 76 studies involving patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Simply sharing information with patients or clinicians improved outcomes in 43% of relevant studies. When symptom monitoring was linked to care pathways, this rose to 68%, while screening approaches showed benefits in 71%.

The same pattern appeared at an organisational level. Benchmarking alone showed no benefit in the four studies examined, while deeper analysis and structured improvement were more effective.

The message is simple: measurement creates value when it leads to action.

Patient experience data, therefore, needs a clear process behind it: who reviews it, what happens as a result and how improvement is measured.

Research examining patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) alongside PROMs also suggests that patients’ experiences of care and their reported well-being are connected, although evidence remains limited in some areas.

The OECD makes a similar point at a health system level, highlighting clear governance and sustained investment as important for turning patient-reported data into meaningful improvements.

When digital convenience becomes digital workload

There is another risk to consider: technology designed to make healthcare easier can end up creating more work for patients.

Polus and colleagues found that digital tools could make care easier through better self-management support, access to healthcare and communication. But they could also create new challenges, including accessibility issues, time-consuming tasks and more responsibility for patients.

Research into digital health equity reinforces the need to design technology that is accessible and supported by the right infrastructure.

This may help explain why digital tools can be most effective when they strengthen the existing relationship between patients and clinicians, rather than simply adding another system to use. Dodson and colleagues found that two-way digital communication could give patients a greater role in their care and support more personalised responses.

How should health systems measure the return on digital investment?

Every major digital investment should be clear about the patient problem it is trying to solve and how success will be measured.

That means looking beyond the technology itself. Does the organisation have the data, integration, workflows, governance and engagement capabilities needed to deliver the intended experience? And are those capabilities mature enough to support it at scale?

The strategic question is therefore not simply “Which technology should we fund?” but “What needs to work around this technology for its value to reach the patient?”

Digital technology can create opportunities for better care, access, and communication. Realising that opportunity depends on the wider system being ready to turn capability into experience.

Explore how Orion Health helps healthcare organisations create more connected, accessible and engaging patient experiences through Patient Engagement.

Authored by Tom Varghese, Global Product Marketing & Growth Manager at Orion Health.

References

• Aqil A, Lippeveld T, Hozumi D. PRISM framework: a paradigm shift for designing, strengthening and evaluating routine health information systems. Health Policy Plan. 2009;24(3):217–228.
• · Bonsel JM, Itiola AJ, Huberts AS, Bonsel GJ, Penton H. The use of patient reported outcome measures to improve patient related outcomes: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024;22:101.
• · Canfell OJ, Woods L, Meshkat Y, et al. The impact of digital hospitals on patient and clinician experience: systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e47715.
• · Dodson P, Haase AM, Jeffreys M, Hales C. Capturing patient experiences of care with digital technology to improve service delivery and quality of care: a scoping review. Digit Health. 2024;10:1–17.
• · Iyanna S, Kaur P, Ractham P, Talwar S, Islam AKMN. Digital transformation of healthcare sector. What is impeding adoption and continued usage of technology driven innovations by end users? J Bus Res. 2022;153:150–161.
• · Kjøllesdal MKR, Iversen HH, Ellingsen Dalskau LH. Concurrent use and association of patient reported experience and outcome measures in psychiatric and substance use disorder care: a scoping review. Front Health Serv. 2025;5:1620809.
• · McKinsey & Company. Digital transformation: Health systems’ investment priorities. Published June 7, 2024.
• · OECD. Does Healthcare Deliver? Results from the Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS). OECD Publishing; 2025.
• · OECD. Building people centred digital health systems: Lessons from PaRIS. OECD Publishing; 2026.
• · OECD. Improving quality of care through the OECD Patient Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS): Using patient reported data to support health policy. OECD Publishing; 2026.
• · Patel SB, Iqbal FM, Lam K, Acharya A, Ashrafian H, Darzi A. Characterizing behaviors that influence the implementation of digital based interventions in health care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e56711. doi:10.2196/56711.
• · Polus M, Keikhosrokiani P, Korhonen O, Behutiye W, Isomursu M. Impact of digital interventions on the treatment burden of patients with chronic conditions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e66874.
• · Wang T, Giunti G, Melles M, Goossens R. Digital patient experience: umbrella systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(8):e37952. doi:10.2196/37952.
• · Wilson S, Tolley C, Mc Ardle R, et al. Recommendations to advance digital health equity: a systematic review of qualitative studies. npj Digit Med. 2024;7:173.