Find what will break in the real ward — before your pilot does.
For MedTech, medical robotics, rehabilitation robotics and digital health. Most products that struggle in practice don't fail technically — they fail because the people, needs, places, routines and organisation around them were different from what the team assumed. Blueprint your use environment in eight human-centred, research-based areas and get a readiness score, a human-centred design check, a complexity profile and an action plan.
Blueprint the real environment your product will live in
Most MedTech, robotics and digital health products that struggle in practice don't fail technically — they fail because the people, needs, places, routines and organisation around them were different from what the team assumed. Work through eight areas, rate each one, then get your blueprint.
Want to see how it works first? Use Load example at the top. Your entries save in this browser.
Your top 5 risks and what to test next
Pick the five risks from your blueprint that matter most. Rate the impact and name one concrete test for each — before the pilot.
Site visit checklist
All 32 field checks in one place. Tick what you have done — it counts as field evidence in your blueprint.
Your blueprint
An automatic reading of your answers: how well you know the environment, how human-centred your process is, how complex the environment is, and what to do next.
Your product
Details
Complexity profile
Human-centred design check
Your eight areas in detail
Top risks and tests
Blind spots and uncertainty
Your action plan
- Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1669–1686. Link
- Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, et al. Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Applied Ergonomics. 2014;45(1):14–25. Link
- Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367. Link
- Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, et al. The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(5):e16861. Link
- Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–478. Link
- Servaty R, Kersten A, Brukamp K, et al. Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e038650. Link
- Rasmussen MK, Schneider-Kamp A, Hyrup T, Godono A. New colleague or gimmick hurdle? A user-centric scoping review of the barriers and facilitators of robots in hospitals. PLOS Digital Health. 2024;3(11):e0000660. Link
- ISO 9241-210:2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Principles summarised in: Travis D. ISO 13407 is dead. Long live ISO 9241-210! Userfocus. Link