Pacific Health Network — Patient Management System Implementation

PMS Go-Live Readiness — Q3 2026

Change Readiness Diagnostic — 10 June 2026

Verdict

The case for change is understood and accepted. The risk is not resistance — it is that impacted users and support teams do not yet feel equipped, heard or confident the change will hold after go-live.

Executive summary

Pacific Health Network is not facing resistance to change — most people understand why the new patient management system is needed and broadly accept the case for it. The risk sits further downstream: impacted users and support teams do not yet feel ready, supported or confident that the change will hold after go-live. The project team sees readiness. The people expected to operate in the new environment do not yet share that view.

Recommended management focus

The recommended actions are designed to close the gap between project team confidence and impacted user readiness, establish clearer ownership of post-go-live support, and ensure sustainment conditions are in place before the change is declared live.

1. Convene a structured session with impacted business users focused specifically on what they need to feel ready — not on project status. The 33–36 point gaps between the project team and impacted users on sustainment confidence and capability and support mean the project team does not currently have an accurate picture of where readiness gaps exist. This session should be separate from any existing change forums and should result in a concrete list of unresolved concerns.
2. Define and communicate the post-go-live support model before go-live, not after. Sustainment confidence at 41 indicates impacted users do not believe the change will hold once the project team steps back. Publish a clear, named support structure — who is responsible for what, how people get help, and for how long that support will be available. Ambiguity here is directly driving the low sustainment scores.
3. Review whether the voice and involvement process has genuinely reached frontline staff. Voice and involvement at 54 with a 25-point gap between the project team and impacted users suggests that while the project team believes consultation has occurred, impacted users do not feel heard. Audit which groups were actually involved in change design, identify who was not, and create a mechanism for their input before go-live.
4. Brief team leaders and managers on the specific readiness gaps impacted users are reporting, and ask them to address those gaps directly within their teams. Local leadership at 62 is the strongest role-group score, making team leaders and managers the most credible channel for closing the readiness gap. Give them the diagnostic findings and ask them to surface and resolve outstanding concerns before the go-live date.
5. Run a targeted diagnostic rerun in 30 days focused on sustainment confidence and capability and support. These are the two dimensions most at risk and most actionable in the pre-go-live window. A 30-day diagnostic rerun will confirm whether interventions are landing and provide an evidence base for the go-live decision.

Diagnostic narrative

Overall readiness signal

The overall score of 58/100 places this change initiative in the Watch band. The change is not facing active resistance, and the case for change is broadly accepted. The risk sits in the gap between how the project team sees readiness and how the people expected to operate in the new environment are experiencing it.

This is one of the most common patterns in change readiness diagnostics: the project team, close to the work and confident in the plan, sees readiness as largely established. Impacted users, experiencing the change from the outside, do not yet feel equipped, heard or confident that the change will hold after the project team steps back.

Role confidence gaps

The project and change team score sustainment confidence at 68. Impacted business users score it at 32. A gap of 36 points is not a communication gap — it is a signal that the project team's assumptions about post-go-live readiness are not yet grounded in the experience of the people who will have to operate the new system day to day.

Capability and support follows the same pattern. The project team rates training and support as sufficient. Impacted users do not feel that confidence yet. The gap on voice and involvement — 25 points — suggests that while the project team feels the business has been consulted, impacted users do not share that experience.

Key readiness risks

Sustainment Confidence at 41 is the most acute signal. When people do not believe a change will stick, their adoption behaviour changes: they do not fully commit to the new way of working, they hedge by maintaining old processes, and workarounds emerge quickly after go-live. This risk is easier to address before launch than after.

Capability and Support at 48 indicates that impacted users and support teams do not yet feel they will have what they need. This is not a training design problem — it may be a visibility problem. People may not know what support will be available, who to call when things go wrong, or whether their concerns have been heard.

Strengths

Case for Change at 72 is the most important foundation in this diagnostic. If people do not believe in the reason for change, adoption is driven by compliance rather than commitment. The fact that most respondents understand and accept the case for change means the project has something to build on. The gap to close is not belief — it is confidence and readiness.

Overall pattern

Pacific Health Network is at a critical point. The project has the foundations — a credible case for change, reasonable clarity on what the change means, and engaged local leadership. The gap is in sustainment: impacted users do not yet feel ready, supported or confident the change will hold. Closing that gap before go-live is the priority. A targeted check in 30 days would confirm whether readiness interventions are landing.

Role confidence gaps

The project and change team are consistently more confident than impacted business users across sustainment confidence, capability and support, and voice and involvement. Gaps of 25–36 points across these three dimensions represent a material readiness illusion — the change may proceed on schedule while the conditions for sustained adoption have not yet been established.

Gap thresholds: Watch ≥18 pts · Strong signal ≥25 pts · Critical ≥37 pts

Readiness risk signals

Sustainment Confidence and Capability and Support both sit in the At Risk band — a combination that signals post-go-live risk rather than pre-launch resistance. Six further dimensions sit in the Watch band. The pattern is not that people oppose the change; it is that they do not yet feel equipped or heard enough to own it.

Readiness strengths

Case for Change scores in the Sound band, indicating that most respondents understand why the change is happening and accept the business rationale. Impact Clarity is also in the Watch range but trending toward Sound, suggesting the practical effects of the change are becoming clearer. These are useful foundations — but they do not on their own establish operational readiness.

Role group comparison

The project and change team scores are consistently the highest across every dimension, while impacted business users score the lowest — including on sustainment confidence (32) and capability and support (38), where the gap to the project team exceeds 30 points. Executive leadership and team leaders sit in the middle, neither as confident as the project team nor as uncertain as impacted users. This pattern is a classic readiness illusion: the group closest to the change solution sees readiness as established; the group that will have to live with it does not yet share that view.

Gap thresholds: Watch ≥18 pts · Strong signal ≥25 pts · Critical ≥37 pts

What to do after receiving a report

1. Review the executive summary with the executive sponsor and change lead.
2. Focus the immediate discussion on the readiness illusion gap — particularly the distance between project team and impacted user confidence.
3. Agree targeted actions on sustainment and support before confirming the go-live timeline.
4. Run a follow-up check in 30 days to confirm readiness improvements are landing.

Start your own check

See whether your change is landing the way you think it is.

Change Readiness Check surfaces the gap between project team confidence and impacted user readiness — before go-live.

Run a fast, anonymous Change Readiness Check. Invite executive sponsors, change team members, team leaders and impacted users. Get a scored diagnostic report that shows where readiness gaps exist and what needs to close before you go live.