In healthcare technology implementation, there's a dangerous moment that most organisations misunderstand: go-live.

Go-live is celebrated as the finish line. Champagne corks pop. Project teams move on. Leadership declares victory.

But go-live isn't the finish line. It's the starting gun.

Everything before go-live is preparation. Everything after go-live is where adoption actually happens—or doesn't. I've seen this pattern repeatedly in healthcare settings, from Epic implementations to clinical AI tools like DAX Copilot.

The Go-Live Illusion

Here's what typically happens. A health system invests significant resources in implementing a new technology. There's extensive planning, configuration, testing, and training. The system goes live. Usage metrics show activity. Success is declared.

But look closer. Usage doesn't mean adoption. A clinician logging in because they have to isn't the same as a clinician who has genuinely integrated the tool into their practice. Compliance isn't adoption.

The real question isn't "are people using it?" The real question is "are people using it well, willingly, and in ways that improve care?"

What Actually Drives Adoption

After years of healthcare transformation work, I've identified several factors that consistently separate genuine adoption from reluctant compliance.

First, clinical credibility matters enormously. Physicians adopt tools endorsed by physicians they respect. The most effective implementation strategies identify and equip clinical champions early—not just enthusiastic early adopters, but respected voices whose endorsement carries weight.

Second, workflow integration trumps feature excellence. A tool with fewer features that fits seamlessly into existing workflows will outperform a feature-rich tool that requires clinicians to change how they work. Healthcare workers are incredibly efficient with their time—they've had to be. Tools that add friction, even for good reasons, face an uphill battle.

Third, visible benefit matters more than promised benefit. Clinicians are skeptical of vendor claims and leadership promises. They believe what they see. This means adoption strategies need to create early, visible wins—not just metrics for leadership, but tangible improvements that individual clinicians experience.

Fourth, peer support scales better than formal training. The best moment for learning isn't a classroom session weeks before go-live—it's the moment of need, when a clinician is trying to do something specific. Peer super-users who can provide just-in-time support are more valuable than any training curriculum.

The 92% Adoption Example

On a recent clinical technology implementation, we achieved 92% adoption—not just usage, but genuine integration into clinical practice. Here's what made the difference:

We started with physician champions, not IT champions. We found clinicians who were genuinely excited about the technology's potential and gave them ownership of the adoption strategy.

We designed for workflow, not for features. Instead of training on everything the tool could do, we focused on the specific workflows that would provide immediate value.

We measured behaviour, not just usage. Logging in doesn't count. We tracked whether clinician

We maintained support intensity past go-live. The project team didn't disperse. Support remained visible and accessible during the critical post-go-live period when habits are forming.