Thursday, February 26, 2026
Researching, innovating, and implementing together with healthcare practice is one of Medical Delta’s core principles. Living Lab Developers Denise van der Meer and Gerwin Vis take this quite literally: they work at least one day per week on-site at VVT organization Zorgpartners Midden-Holland.
Here, they link research and education to innovation and implementation. They engage with healthcare professionals and residents, and support each other in the further development of “their” living labs. By being on-site, they kan identify barriers earlier and help accelerate innovation and implementation.
Denise van der Meer does this for the Medical Delta Living Lab TIPIZ: 'Technology implementation with positive impact on care', while Gerwin Vis works for Medical Delta Living Lab 'Data supported healthcare & innovation'. We spoke with them at a Zorgpartners Midden-Holland location in Gouda about their experiences.
"As educators, we both teach, and as Lab Developers, we conduct research in healthcare practice: it’s the optimal situation."
This interview is the eighth in a series featuring practice partners of the transdisciplinary Medical Delta programs and living labs.
Why do you work on-site at Zorgpartners?
Denise: “Zorgpartners is a VVT organization (nursing and care homes and home care) that participates in the ‘Innoveer[t]huis’ project together with Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and the care office VGZ. They provide us with the practical context in which we conduct research and connect it with education.
Medical Delta Living Lab TIPIZ aims to support healthcare practice in implementing and scaling healthcare technology. Together with our practice partners, we see that there are countless smart innovations available, yet too few ultimately make it into practice. Dr. Helma Kaptein (Professor of Healthcare Technology Implementation at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and one of the living lab leaders) developed an implementation compass that also takes the necessary preconditions into account to successfully deploy innovations. With the feedback we gather here, we continue to further develop this compass.”
Gerwin: “The technology our living lab focuses on (data and AI) is actually still in the pre-implementation and pre-scaling phase. Nevertheless, we are already trying to connect practice partners, research institutions, and educational organizations, and to deploy AI and data tools wherever possible.
Gathering feedback from the people who will ultimately work with the technology is extremely important. After all, it’s about ensuring that what you do and build meets real needs: which problem are you solving, and where will the technology actually help? In addition, a well-functioning AI tool requires usable datasets, and for that, you depend on input from practice.”
What does a typical workday look like for you here?
Denise: “My role is to ensure that the research we conduct, always together with students, is carried out in the way we planned. I supervise students in their research on the wards. The healthcare staff here tell me they appreciate seeing us, as researchers, working alongside them.”
Gerwin: “Over the past few weeks, I’ve regularly walked the wards to see how we can implement voice-assisted reporting. We involve students in this process. I also consult with the professorship on how to shape it further and where to focus. Having worked in healthcare for twenty years myself, including as a nurse, being on the wards here feels like ‘coming home.’”
How did you experience the implementation of innovations back when you were a nurse?
Gerwin: “Well, I’ve personally seen healthcare innovations being announced with great fanfare, while many healthcare professionals either didn’t know how to use them or didn’t want to. I still see this today: some people embrace the innovation, while others don’t see its added value. As a researcher, both perspectives are interesting to me - why does something work for one person but not for another?”
One of the objectives of the Medical Delta Living Lab TIPIZ is to scale up proven, successful innovations. Apparently, this is still not happening sufficiently, otherwise the living lab would not have been established. Why is that?
Denise: “It’s not down to a single factor. If we really want to scale proven innovations, we need to rethink care processes. For example, through Innoveer[t]huis, we are researching the ‘Linaus Syren-shower,’ a new way of showering in bed that saves a lot of time. A question came up from practice: why do we only shower people in the morning? Some residents would much rather shower in the evening.
This doesn’t fit into the standard care routines, but it’s something worth considering. And that’s quite complex, because embedding innovations into care processes also requires looking at, for example, the vision of the healthcare organization, financial resources and reimbursement, and user support. Even if something is mandated nationally, it doesn’t mean it will work equally well everywhere. Within TIPIZ, these are the key conditions we consider when using the implementation compass.”
An implementation success for department A does not automatically mean it will be successful for department B, where care processes and needs may be slightly different
Gerwin: “When an innovation is implemented for the first time, everything is done to make it succeed: staff and clients are listened to, processes are adjusted, and both the innovation and its context are tailored to the needs of practice. If it then proves successful, that success in healthcare organization or department A does not automatically translate to department B, which may have slightly different care processes and needs.
During scaling, what was adjusted and further developed throughout the implementation process is not always taken into account. To implement a healthcare innovation in department B as successfully as in department A, you essentially need to go through the implementation process again.
This is something we also want to facilitate through Innoveer[t]huis: guiding healthcare organizations through an implementation flowchart to properly integrate an AI application into their care process. The key is to take the context into account during implementation, something we also want students to experience and learn from.”
Is the approach to innovation in VVT different from, for example, a hospital?
Denise: “It’s hard to say definitively, since the TIPIZ living lab focuses specifically on VVT. But in general, I can say there is still a lot of room for improvement when it comes to technology use in VVTs.
This is partly because processes are not aligned. For example, people may use a medication dispenser at home, but during a short-term admission, the care team takes over the medication process, and upon returning home the patient again depends on the dispenser. Ideally, technology should be transferable across settings.
Technical IT infrastructure is often the biggest limitation to deploying technology. In addition, funding streams often don’t align. And there are legal and regulatory questions—for instance, who is responsible for the use of a medication dispenser once it leaves the home during a hospital stay? Process innovation is crucial in addressing these challenges.”
Gerwin: “Within VVT, everyone wants to do ‘something’ with AI, but no one knows exactly what. So right now, we are mainly investigating what it should be able to do. It is encouraging, though, to see how much healthcare staff prioritize safety. That’s a good starting point, because you always need to check whether what an AI tool says or does is actually correct.”
How does the network strengthen itself?
Denise: “All healthcare organizations more or less struggle with the same problem: how do you make smart, effective innovations part of everyday practice? You notice this, for example, at national meetings like the 'Slimme Zorgestafette'. It’s extremely valuable that we are no longer all reinventing the wheel ourselves. There is a growing awareness of: let’s join forces. Even within our own consortium, a network is emerging with increasing exchange. Partners within TIPIZ - Omring and Pieter van Foreest - already share many experiences.
I’ve been working here in practice for a year, and Gerwin for a few months. At one point he said, ‘We can build all sorts of AI tools, but for relevance, we really need input from practice.’ And I said that we have that practical input here, and that we were very keen to start working with AI. Through the network of the Medical Delta Living Labs, you see that everyone is starting to connect more and more, and that really excites me.”
There is a growing awareness of: let’s join forces
Gerwin: “The lack of knowledge about AI is a real issue in healthcare. As a living lab, we took the initiative to make ‘AI literacy’ a topic of discussion by exploring what a healthcare professional should be able to do and know to improve in this area. We posted this methodology on LinkedIn, and judging by the responses, it resonates across the sector. Through the living lab, we’ve also organized some great sessions with Rijndam Rehabilitation.”
Denise: “For that new way of showering, for example, we exchange experiences between different care organizations, such as Aafje and Pieter van Foreest. The same happens with research on the use of video care, which students are currently working on. In this context, the partners Omring and Pieter van Foreest found a great match.”
What do you gain from each other as Living Lab Developers?
Denise: “We often discuss topics that interest us both, such as: how do you effectively engage practice partners? Where do you place assignments? It helps that we are both lecturers at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, so we can easily bring in research questions from practice. The People and Technology | Healthcare Technology program of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences aligns perfectly with the research questions we have. As lecturers, we both teach, conduct research, and work in healthcare practice: a truly optimal situation.”
Gerwin: “I benefit a lot from Denise’s research skills and her way of setting up research assignments. Another advantage is that her living lab, in terms of technological development, is closer to practical use, while with AI we are still a step before that stage.”
Denise: “Although I am on the ward, Gerwin really comes from practice, which is extremely valuable for me. There is also a great exchange between all the Living Lab Developers. Building a network, finding partners, deciding how to present certain things: we encounter the same challenges.”
Gerwin: “We now also take on topics together. These can be projects, such as using an AI application for staff and residents. Another example is giving masterclasses to healthcare professionals on implementation.”
How is the collaboration within the consortia that form your living labs?
Gerwin: “That collaboration is increasingly taking shape. We started pretty much from scratch with AI innovations as a relatively new topic, so in the beginning it was mostly about discussions, exploring collaboration, and making plans. Now, we are setting up targeted projects. From the start there was great energy, and now it’s all coming together. It’s wonderful to see.”
Denise: “We are also increasingly focusing on connecting educational institutions. In the field, you see that science, practical research, and application intersect, but there is insufficient knowledge about how they can benefit from each other. I would love to see a project involving university, applied sciences and vocational students. That’s still quite challenging, as you encounter various barriers such as costs, fitting it into the curriculum, and assessment.”
In the field, you see that science, practical research, and application intersect, but there is insufficient knowledge about how they can benefit from each other
Gerwin: “There is still a lot of room for improvement when it comes to AI applications. It’s no longer the case that you need a graduate-level, experienced programmer to create a useful AI tool. At the same time, the vast majority of these tools are not implemented. Many healthcare staff who need to work with them come from vocational education (mbo), so we are increasingly making sure to involve them.”
When it comes to implementing healthcare innovations, what is the most important advice you would give?
Denise: “We’ve come from a period of technology push: a solution looking for a problem. Turn that around: go into healthcare practice, identify the problems first, and involve the people who will actually use it in the development process. If they see that it solves their problem, it is much more likely to be adopted.”
Gerwin: “When I still worked in healthcare as a project manager, it was more about: ‘how do we adjust practice to fit a particular innovation?’ That is now shifting to: ‘how can we develop an innovation so that it fits practice?’. This shift needs to continue.
You see this happening with AI as well: lots of things are being developed, and small companies pop up everywhere, but often they go to healthcare practice too late to really understand the actual need. Of course, you also need pioneers who come up with amazing solutions from scratch. But if you really want something to land successfully, you have to further develop it together with the users.”
Denise: “Also keep an eye on the secondary effects of innovations. The previously mentioned Syren-shower, for example, can save 15 to 20 minutes per action. Similarly, there are AI applications that reduce labor. Then the question arises: what do we do with that saved time?
Do we go back to the old way, where there was more time and resources for informal care and chatting with an elderly or dependent person? Or do we move to a new way of working, providing more care with the same people and resources? It means you need to reorganize workflows to make use of the time savings. Make sure to discuss this together as well.”
Photo's: Guido Benschop, text: Sietse Pots
