DIME PROJECT

Aging in Place of Choice with Connected Health Technologies

From AgeTech innovation to sustainable implementation

HEALTHCARE PROVIDER: TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

Selecting the right AgeTech product

This section of the healthcare provider playbook provides a stepwise approach to help you evaluate and select AgeTech products that are more likely to meet the needs of the older adults you serve, their care partners, and your care team.

Selecting the right AgeTech vendor to support older adults means answering four questions.

Is it designed for quality?
Is it designed for older adults and their care partners?
Can you trust the vendor with your patients’ data?
Does it fit your operational workflow?

STEP 1

Define the need, the older adult patient population, and AgeTech users

Identify the need and whether technology is the right solution. Technology is not the right answer for every clinical, functional, or behavioral challenge. Start by clearly defining the need you want to address and the older adults experiencing it. Then consider whether AgeTech can improve care, patient experience, or care team operations beyond what is possible with existing approaches or the current standard of care.

A clear understanding of the need, population, and desired outcome will help you determine where AgeTech may provide value and what you should look for in a vendor.

Exercise: Before considering the use of AgeTech, answer the three questions below.

1. Who are the older adults you are trying to serve and all the potential user(s) that would need to interact with the technology?	What are the relevant characteristics, needs, health conditions, functional needs, living arrangements, and care contexts of this population? Learn more about defining the specific older adult segment you’re aiming to serve
2. What specific challenge are you trying to solve?	What problem is affecting this population, and what outcome are you trying to improve?
3. Could AgeTech meaningfully improve care or operations?	Would technology provide a meaningful benefit beyond what is currently available or considered standard of care? Consider whether it could improve outcomes, access, patient experience, care team capacity, or efficiency.

Your answers will help you determine whether AgeTech is an appropriate solution and where it could provide the greatest value. If you identify a potential role for AgeTech, continue to the next step.

PRO TIP

Finding potential AgeTech products that suit the need you aim to address

The goal at this stage is not to commit to a product. It is to build a short list of two or three plausible candidates to carry forward into the evaluation criteria in the next section.

Once you have confirmed technology is a reasonable fit for the challenge you’re trying to solve, the next step is often figuring out what AgeTech products exist for that problem, which is frequently the hardest part of the process given how large and fast-moving the AgeTech market is.

Two approaches can help, and most organizations use some combination of both.

The first is scanning the market yourself, organized around the problem category rather than individual products. For a falls-related problem, for example, search for fall detection and mobility monitoring technology rather than a list of specific brands, drawing on vendor directories, peer health system assessments, and industry publications.
Second, draw on outside expertise, such as vendors, peer provider networks, aging and technology associations, or consultants who track the landscape professionally.

STEP 2

Use evidence-based criteria to select fit-for-purpose AgeTech products

Refer to the table below when you’re assessing whether AgeTech products are fit-for-purpose for the older adult patient population you serve. It outlines key criteria for evaluating vendors and the evidence to request, with additional considerations that are particularly important when selecting technology for older adults. The criteria are adapted from DiMe’s V3+ Framework and Integrated Evidence Checklist.

Guide for selecting AgeTech that works for older adults and care teams

Evaluation item	Why it matters for AgeTech	Example question to ask the vendor	Red flag(s)
For sensor-based AgeTech products: Verification, Analytical validation, Clinical validation	A sensor can pass bench verification, and even analytical validation in younger, healthier people,and still misread signals distorted by age-related factors like reduced peripheral circulation, tremor, or thinner skin. Algorithms trained on general population gait, vitals, or activity patterns can misfire on older adults, whose baseline gait speed, resting vitals, and activity levels differ systematically from a younger population the algorithm may have been built on. A measure can be analytically accurate and still fail to predict the outcome that matters for a frail, multimorbid older adult, since risk thresholds for this population differ from a healthy adult population.	“Can you show verification data for your sensor, and analytical validation data from a population age-matched to ours?” “Can you show me peer reviewed evidence that your technology measures [e.g., blood pressure, fall events, activity level] within a stated margin of error, in an older adult population specifically?” “What population was this validated in, older adults with multiple chronic conditions, or a younger, healthier cohort?”	No independent verification data, or analytical validation performed only on a younger cohort Accuracy data exists only for a general adult population, not an older adult subgroup Validation study population does not resemble your target patient population’s age or comorbidity profile
Usability validation	AgeTech vendors who have not conducted sufficient usability validation risk failing specifically for older adults with sensory or cognitive impairment, rather than for the general population the product may have been tested on. In addition, the care partner, not the older adult, is usually the one who receives and acts on an alert, and a product tuned for alert sensitivity rather than alert relevance burns out the exact person the older adult depends on to keep using the device.	“What usability testing did you run with your target older adult population, potentially including those with sensory or cognitive impairment, and what was the error or dropout rate?” “How does a designated care partner get visibility into status and alerts, and how has alert volume been tuned to avoid notification fatigue?”	No usability testing with older adults, or testing limited to healthy, tech-comfortable older adults Have not considered care partner role in design and development of AgeTech product.

Evaluation item

Why it matters for AgeTech

Example question to ask the vendor

Red flag(s)

For sensor-based AgeTech products: Verification, Analytical validation, Clinical validation

A sensor can pass bench verification, and even analytical validation in younger, healthier people,and still misread signals distorted by age-related factors like reduced peripheral circulation, tremor, or thinner skin.

Algorithms trained on general population gait, vitals, or activity patterns can misfire on older adults, whose baseline gait speed, resting vitals, and activity levels differ systematically from a younger population the algorithm may have been built on.

A measure can be analytically accurate and still fail to predict the outcome that matters for a frail, multimorbid older adult, since risk thresholds for this population differ from a healthy adult population.

“Can you show verification data for your sensor, and analytical validation data from a population age-matched to ours?”

“Can you show me peer reviewed evidence that your technology measures [e.g., blood pressure, fall events, activity level] within a stated margin of error, in an older adult population specifically?”

“What population was this validated in, older adults with multiple chronic conditions, or a younger, healthier cohort?”

No independent verification data, or analytical validation performed only on a younger cohort

Accuracy data exists only for a general adult population, not an older adult subgroup

Validation study population does not resemble your target patient population’s age or comorbidity profile

Usability validation

AgeTech vendors who have not conducted sufficient usability validation risk failing specifically for older adults with sensory or cognitive impairment, rather than for the general population the product may have been tested on.

In addition, the care partner, not the older adult, is usually the one who receives and acts on an alert, and a product tuned for alert sensitivity rather than alert relevance burns out the exact person the older adult depends on to keep using the device.

“What usability testing did you run with your target older adult population, potentially including those with sensory or cognitive impairment, and what was the error or dropout rate?”

“How does a designated care partner get visibility into status and alerts, and how has alert volume been tuned to avoid notification fatigue?”

No usability testing with older adults, or testing limited to healthy, tech-comfortable older adults

Have not considered care partner role in design and development of AgeTech product.

*The “operational fit” criteria highlight topics to discuss with the AgeTech vendor to understand whether the product was thoughtfully designed and developed for older adults and the care teams that support them. During a pilot, you can also conduct additional usability testing to understand how well the product works for your specific patient population and care team, and identify any changes or support needed for successful implementation.

Evaluation item	Why it matters for AgeTech	Example question to ask the vendor	Red flag(s)
Onboarding without a technically capable household member	Onboarding support: Some older adults may live alone or with a spouse who may also find setup difficult, a scenario that technologies developed for the general population do not account for.	”Walk me through onboarding for a patient with no technically capable person in the household. What happens at each step?”	Onboarding assumes a family member or care partner present to help
Connectivity	Cellular-first removes a dependency that disproportionately excludes lower-income and rural older adults.	”Is cellular connectivity built in, or does the patient need to provide their own WiFi?”	WiFi-only, no cellular option available
Vendor-supplied tech support	Technologies developed for a younger population often assume the end user can describe their problem over chat or troubleshoot a link, which is a poor fit for a population with sensory, cognitive, or literacy barriers.	”Is tech concierge support included in the contract, and is it available by phone rather than chat or email only?”	Support is chat or email only, or concierge support is a paid add-on
Setup materials	A PDF emailed to the patient assumes internet access, a technology to read it on, and vision adequate to read small print. These assumptions may fail more often in this population than in the general adult population.	”Do you provide plain language, large format printed setup instructions as a standard deliverable?”	Instructions exist only as a digital download, not adjustable in size
Point solution versus bundle	Older adults and their care partners are managing multiple chronic conditions, and each additional disconnected app adds cognitive and logistical burden for older adults and care partners.	”Does this integrate fall prevention, vitals monitoring, and other functions into one interface, or will our patients need a separate app for each function?”	Requires multiple disconnected apps for related functions
Minimize burden on care teams	To support older adults managing multiple chronic conditions, care teams may be receiving output from multiple AgeTech products. Products that generate excessive tasks, notifications, documentation, or follow-up requirements can create additional workload and contribute to staff burden, alert fatigue, and poor adoption across the full team.	“What is your strategy for minimizing the workload your product creates for care teams?” “What tasks, alerts, or follow-up actions does the product require from clinicians or other care team members? Which tasks are automated, and which require human intervention?” “How have you assessed the product’s impact on staff time, workflow, and cognitive burden?”	No evidence demonstrating how the product affects healthcare provider workload No thoughtful strategy of how the product can minimize care team burden

Evaluation item	Why it matters for AgeTech	Example question to ask the vendor	Red flag(s)
HIPAA and BAA	Healthcare providers are legally required to comply with it, and that requirement extends to any vendor who touches patient health information on their behalf. Sharing protected health information with a vendor without a BAA is itself a HIPAA violation, and leaves the provider exposed if the vendor has a breach.	”Will you sign a Business Associate Agreement, and can you show current HIPAA compliance documentation?”	Vendor will not sign a BAA
Independent security audit	Same baseline logic, verify rather than assume, since a startup built for consumer wellness may not have undergone healthcare-grade audits even if it now markets to providers.	“Can you produce a current SOC 2 or HITRUST audit?”	No third party audit available
TEFCA participation and interoperability	Older adults are likely to be managed across multiple care settings and payers simultaneously (for example, a Medicare Advantage plan and Medicaid, a home health agency, a specialist), so interoperable data exchange matters more here than for a single-condition consumer app.	“Do you participate in, or have a plan to participate in, TEFCA?” “How would your product’s data get into our EHR, and how would care teams see and act on it in their existing workflow?”	No clear explanation of how data reaches your EHR and care team. No clear explanation of how their data can be shared.
Patient data use transparency	Older adults are concerned about data privacy and security. Ensure vendors have appropriate safeguards data. AgeTech products may collect sensitive health information that is not always protected by HIPAA, so healthcare providers should understand how vendors collect, use, retain, and share patient data and ensure those practices are clearly explained and consistent with their privacy commitments under the FTC Act.	“Do you use patient data, identifiable or de-identified, for any purpose other than delivering care to enrolled patients, including model training, product improvement, or sale to third parties?”	Vendor hedges, gives a vague answer, or answers a different question
AI governance and model management	If AgeTech incorporates AI components in their products, older adults and caregivers may question if some AI applications are simply using “AI for AI’s sake.” AI should provide value added and improve care team interactions rather than replace them. AgeTech products integrating AI models pose additional risks that vendor compliance with AI governance frameworks (e.g. NIST, CHAI, ISO/IEC 42001 & 23894) can help mitigate. AI models in particularrequire close post deployment monitoring as there is documented risk of performance decay with time in evolving healthcare settings.	“Can you provide traceable evidence showing what was tested, with whom, under what conditions, what the limitations are, and how risk is managed post deployment for the underlying AI model?”	No transparency of the model’s purpose, training & evaluation data, performance metrics, and known limitations.

PRO TIP

Use the DiMe Seal to view a list of high-quality, trustworthy digital health software products

The DiMe Seal evaluates evidence, privacy and security, and usability together, and CMS now recognizes it as an evaluation pathway for the Medicare App Library. View the list of digital health software products awarded the DiMe Seal.

CASE STUDY

Using passive monitoring to reduce fall risk in senior living communities

Withings demonstrates how passive monitoring can improve safety without increasing burden for older adults. By embedding unobtrusive sensing into the care environment and delivering actionable alerts to caregivers, the technology supports timely intervention while fitting naturally into everyday routines.

STEP 3

Evaluate whether AgeTech product can be implemented at scale

A validated AgeTech product can still fail if it is difficult to implement, integrate, or sustain in real-world care settings. This section helps healthcare providers assess whether the product fits their existing systems, workflows, and capacity, and whether the vendor provides the support needed for successful adoption by staff, older adults, and care partners.

Evaluate whether the AgeTech product can be integrated into existing workflows and whether the vendor provides support needed to implement and sustain it at scale

Two questions to assess your team’s implementation needs and your vendor’s capabilities:

Where does the data need to surface for a clinician to see and act on it without added friction?

The test is whether the product fits into how your care team already works, with minimal extra logins, clicks, or context switching. For example, that can mean an alert that pushes directly into the EHR inbox they already monitor, or a true embedded integration, depending on your team’s workflow. Ask vendors how many separate steps a clinician needs to take to see and act on their product’s data, and whether that fits an existing habit or requires building a new one.

Who is responsible for educating care partners and older adults on how to use the technology and why it matters?

This may sound like an implementation detail, but it is an important procurement decision. The answer can determine whether you need a vendor that provides hands-on support, a dedicated staff role, or partnership with community organizations to support onboarding and ongoing use.

Closer look: Mitigating alert fatigue

Problem

Alert fatigue is an implementation and patient risk. Historically, remote monitoring programs that generated large volumes of alerts but did not require clinical action contributed to healthcare provider alert fatigue and burnout. Excessive noise can reduce trust in the technology being implemented and make it harder to identify alerts that require action

Solution

Make alert performance and accountability part of your vendor evaluation

Ask vendors to provide alert performance benchmarks from existing deployments, including alerts per patient per day, escalation rates, and false positive rates. If a vendor cannot provide data from comparable deployments, consider this when assessing their experience and readiness to support implementation at scale.

Establish alert accountability before piloting the technology. Every alert should answer to three questions, decided before the first patient is enrolled:

Who receives the alert?
Within what timeframe must they respond?
What is the escalation path if they do not respond?

An alert is only useful if it is accurate, if someone knows it has arrived, understands what action is expected, and is accountable for taking that action.

Who owns the last mile?

The gap between technology deployment and successful use can be a key point where implementation breaks down. AgeTech developers often assume the health system handles onboarding as part of daily care. Healthcare providers might assume the product is intuitive enough that setup requires no extra training or that the vendor will provide everything needed for successful onboarding.

Without clearly defining roles and responsibilities for training and supporting older adults and care partners, older adults are left without clear support, even though they often need direct instruction.

“If someone just explains it to me, I’m fine. Don’t give me a whole sophisticated system and tell me I’m on my own… I need the written directions and a demonstration. Once I see how it is done, I can do it.”

– Older adult interviewed

“[On setting up smart devices], if they[the older adult] need to search too hard for [help], then they might just give up and be like, I don’t care anymore.”

– Care partner interviewed

Before going live, define implementation responsibilities in writing and assign a named owner to each. Every implementation plan should answer four questions:

1. What does “onboarding complete” mean? Define what the older adult must be able to do before onboarding is considered complete. Device activation alone is not onboarding.

2. Who handles the first support request? Define who responds when an older adult or care partner needs help, whether the request comes by phone, message, or another channel.

3. When does an issue escalate, and who initiates the escalation? Define when a technical issue requires provider involvement and who is responsible for making that handoff.

4. Who provides in-person support when remote support is not enough? Define who arranges in-person assistance, when it is required, and how the associated costs are covered.

Vendors may support many aspects of implementation, but healthcare providers retain responsibility for decisions that sit within the care relationship. At a minimum, providers should define and own three areas:

Setting expectations with older adults and care partners. Explain what the technology does, what it does not do, what data it collects, and how that data will be used.

Defining how data informs care. Establish who reviews and interprets relevant data, what decisions or actions may result, and when clinical intervention is appropriate. These responsibilities should remain clearly defined, even when a vendor or algorithm supports data interpretation or alerts.

Ensuring appropriate consent. Define what the older adult is agreeing to, how consent is documented, and how changes to consent or preferences are managed over time.

Below is an illustrative example of how responsibilities can be assigned across different stakeholders. Note that each responsibility assigned to the “care provider” should have a named role attached to it, such as an intake coordinator, community health worker, nurse, or remote monitoring specialist.

Be explicit about where clinical responsibility sits. Non-clinical roles can educate, support, and escalate, but clinical decisions about what monitoring data means and what action to take must have a clearly identified clinical owner.

Care provider(s)	Potential in-person onboarding support \| reviews data in existing workflow \| acts only on flagged alerts \| loops in specialists as needed
Developer (vendor)	FHIR R4 integration \| defines alert logic \| provides onboarding support \| provides technical support \| maintains data pipeline
EHR	Receives structured data \| makes data available across the care team
Older adult	Uses technology \| onboarded with support \| shares data with consent \| Is contacted if care action is needed
Care partner	Supports day-to-day use \| receives non-clinical updates when appropriate \| connects older adult with available community resources
Community partners	Provides in-person technology and health support where available

CASE STUDY

Integrating fall prevention into clinical workflows

ForesightCares demonstrates how successful implementation extends beyond technology deployment. Through workflow integration, clearly defined stakeholder roles, caregiver engagement, and reimbursement alignment, the organization built a sustainable model for implementing digital fall prevention across clinical, community, and home settings.

Next step

Define your business case for AgeTech.

Go to business case