Shared mobile devices in healthcare: what IAM teams should fix

TL;DR: Hospitals adopting shared mobile devices save an average of $1.1 million annually, with mature governance lifting yearly savings to $1.4 million, while clinician satisfaction with mobile access still sits only between 56% and 60%, according to Imprivata. Shared-device programmes now need tighter identity and access governance, not just device rollout, because operational value depends on secure, low-friction access.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: Shared Mobile Devices Unlock Million Dollar Savings in Healthcare

By the numbers:

• Those with mature programs and strong governance see a 63% higher ROI.
• 56% to 60% of clinicians rate their mobile, obile access experience above a six on a 10-point scale.

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should hospitals govern shared mobile device access across clinical shifts?

A: Hospitals should govern shared mobile device access by treating each sign-in as a distinct identity event, not a casual device reuse.

Q: Why do shared devices create more access risk than single-user devices?

A: Shared devices create more access risk because the device persists while the user context changes repeatedly.

Q: How do organisations know whether shared-device governance is working?

A: They should look for short access times, low workaround behaviour, clean audit trails, and consistent session resets at handoff.

Practitioner guidance

• Define session handoff rules for every shared device Set explicit rules for who can reuse a device, how the previous user is terminated, and what state must be cleared before the next clinician signs in.
• Tie access policy to clinical shift patterns Model access around shifts, wards, and on-call escalation paths instead of generic user groups.
• Measure clinician friction as a security control signal Track failed sign-ins, time-to-access, and workaround behaviour alongside audit logs.

What's in the full article

Imprivata's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• The survey framing behind the $1.1 million average savings figure and the conditions that separate mature from immature programmes.
• The five priorities Imprivata lists for successful shared-device deployment, including governance, loss prevention, identity controls, system integration, and ROI tracking.
• The clinician productivity and care-delivery arguments used to connect access design with operational outcomes.
• The article's broader healthcare efficiency context, which helps teams explain the programme internally without over-rotating on security language.

👉 Read Imprivata's analysis of shared mobile devices and healthcare savings →

Shared mobile devices in healthcare: what IAM teams should fix?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →