Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences
A two-way EHR link moves a new pump from third to first.
Holding a new infusion pump for two-way EHR integration meant missing a ship date already on the calendar. Before its maker chose, we interviewed 200 nursing and biomedical leaders who sit on pump selection committees, and the report followed in 20 days.
Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.
The engagement
Illustrative scenariodays, with the report, the data file and a live readout.
Nursing and biomedical leaders on pump selection committees.
110 nursing leaders and 90 biomedical engineering leaders.
12 choice tasks of three pump profiles and a none option, cost included.
A medical device maker
Whether to hold its next pump for two-way EHR integration
Launch planning, with a ship date already on the calendar
AI-moderated interviews with a 12-task choice-based conjoint
Attribute importance, preference segments, simulated share
Committee leaders at hospitals that run pump fleets of every size
Headline figures
of the choice rests on two-way EHR integration, the top attribute of five
of 200 leaders sit in the integration-first segment, six in ten of each role
simulated share for the new pump with two-way integration, against 22% with a one-way link
The question
Should the next pump wait for the EHR link?
The device maker could ship its next pump on schedule with a one-way EHR link, or hold it for two-way integration. The team expected nursing leaders to want the link and biomedical leaders, who carry fleet cost, to trade it for a lower bid. It needed to see how both roles weigh the link against cost.
Which features decide which pump a hospital buys?
Do nursing and biomedical leaders trade those features the same way?
What share would the new pump win with two-way EHR integration, and without it?
What we did
How the study ran, start to finish.
- 1Kickoff
A ship date against a two-way link.
Should our next pump wait for two-way EHR integration or ship without it? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which features decide pump choice, whether nursing and biomedical leaders trade them alike, and what share it wins with and without the link.
- 2Design
Pump committees, a 12-task conjoint.
Every respondent had sat on a pump selection committee within three years: 110 nursing and 90 biomedical leaders. Each completed 12 choice tasks of three pump profiles and a none option, varying EHR link, battery, weight, fleet updates and five-year cost per channel.
- 3Fielding
Leaders who chose none said why.
Leaders responded by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, median 42 minutes; choosing none triggered a follow-up about what was missing. The researcher read all 227 and removed 27 for rushed responses, duplicate identities or roles off the committee, leaving 200.
- 4Analysis
Both roles want the link.
The researcher segmented the 200 leaders by what they traded away, using a latent class model on the conjoint choices. Biomedical leaders, who carry fleet cost, joined the integration-first group as often as nursing leaders did: six in ten of each, 124 in all.
- 5Readout
From third in share to first, at 35%.
The researcher opened the live readout with the share simulator built on the conjoint model, then took the device team through a 37-page report, both segment profiles and the full data file. The launch moved back so the pump ships with two-way integration.
What we found
Four findings from the report.
Two-way EHR integration leads pump choice, ahead of five-year cost. Both roles value it: biomedical leaders join the integration-first segment as often as nursing leaders do. In the share simulator, two-way integration moves the new pump from third to first: 35% share against two rival pumps, up from 22% with a one-way link.
Two-way EHR integration leads the choice, ahead of cost.
Two-way EHR integration carries 37% of the weight in pump choice, ahead of five-year cost per channel at 33%. Battery life follows at 21%, and weight and wireless fleet updates trail at 5% and 4%.
Attribute importance, share of the choice · top 4 of 5 · n = 200Two segments weigh the link and cost in opposite ways.
Integration-first leaders (124) put 54% of their choice on the EHR link and 22% on cost. Cost-first leaders (76) reverse it: 51% on cost and 9% on the link. Battery life weighs the same in both.
Attribute importance by segment · n = 124 vs n = 76Biomedical leaders want the link as much as nursing leaders do.
61% of nursing leaders and 63% of biomedical leaders sit in the integration-first segment, a gap well inside the margin of error. Biomedical leaders value the link for the fleet usage data it brings, which their teams now gather by hand.
Two-way integration moves the new pump from third to first.
Against Pumps A and B, with none allowed and five-year cost held level with Pump A, the new pump takes 35% share with two-way integration and 22% with a one-way link. Most of the gain comes from Pump A.
“If the pump can’t take the order straight from the chart, my nurses are still typing at the bedside. That’s the one thing I won’t give up.”Nursing director · Illustrative quote
Illustrative quotes
Three themes behind the numbers.
“Two-way is the whole point. A one-way link just tells the record what we already did by hand.”
“I carry the service budget for every pump in the building. I still want the link, because right now my techs walk the floors to find out which pumps get used.”
“None of those would talk to our record system both ways, so none of them would get past our committee.”
What the device maker did
Three moves made with the report.
Held the launch for the EHR link.
The pump now ships with two-way EHR integration, which the simulator puts at 35% share against 22% with a one-way link.
Sold the link to both roles.
Sales materials pair the bedside case for nursing leaders with the fleet-data case for biomedical leaders, the reason each role gave.
Held five-year cost level with Pump A.
With cost-first leaders putting 51% of their choice on cost, the team kept the five-year cost per channel level with Pump A and charged nothing extra for the link.
Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.
Bring us your next launch question.
A senior researcher designs and presents every study.
Talk to our teamMore healthcare & life sciences studies