Background Digital health in hospital settings is viewed as a panacea for achieving the “quadruple aim” of health care, yet the outcomes have been largely inconclusive. To optimize digital health outcomes, a strategic approach is necessary, requiring digital maturity assessments. However, current approaches to assessing digital maturity have been largely insufficient, with uncertainty surrounding the dimensions to assess. Objective The aim of this study was to identify the current dimensions used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature (published before December 2020) investigating maturity models used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals. A total of 29 relevant articles were retrieved, representing 27 distinct maturity models. The articles were inductively analyzed, and the maturity model dimensions were extracted and consolidated into a maturity model framework. Results The consolidated maturity model framework consisted of 7 dimensions: strategy; information technology capability; interoperability; governance and management; patient-centered care; people, skills, and behavior; and data analytics. These 7 dimensions can be evaluated based on 24 respective indicators. Conclusions The maturity model framework developed for this study can be used to assess digital maturity and identify areas for improvement.

BackgroundDigital health maturity models allow healthcare organizations to evaluate digital health capability and to develop roadmaps for improving patient care through technology. There are many models available commercially for healthcare providers to use to assess their digital health maturity. Currently, there are limited evidence-based methods to assess the quality, utility, and efficacy of maturity models to select the most appropriate model for the given context.ObjectiveTo develop a framework to assess digital maturity models and facilitate recommendations for digital maturity model selection.MethodsA systematic, consultative, and iterative process was used. Literature analyses and a stakeholder needs analysis (n = 23) was conducted to develop content and design considerations. These considerations were incorporated into the initial version of the framework developed by researchers in a design workshop. External stakeholder review (n = 20) and improvements strengthened and finalized the framework.ResultsThe criteria of the framework include assessment of healthcare context, feasibility, integrity, completeness and actionability. Users can compare model performance in order to select the most appropriate model for their context.ConclusionThe framework provides healthcare stakeholders with a consistent and objective methodology to compare digital health maturity models, informing approaches to choosing a suitable model. This is a critical step as healthcare evolves towards a digital health system focused on improving the quality of care, reducing costs and improving the provider and consumer experience.

BACKGROUND Digital health maturity models allow healthcare organizations to evaluate current digital state and develop roadmaps for improving patient care through digital change. Currently, there is limited capacity to assess the quality, utility, and efficacy of maturity models to select one for use. OBJECTIVE To work in partnership with researchers, governments, and health services to design and develop an assessment framework to facilitate recommendations for digital maturity models to use in practice. METHODS Underpinned by design science research, a systematic, consultative, and iterative process was used. The first step involved literature analyses and stakeholder needs analysis to develop content and design considerations. In the second step, these considerations were incorporated into a draft framework developed by researchers in a design workshop. The third step involved external stakeholder review to strengthen and finalize the framework. RESULTS The assessment framework to evaluate digital health maturity models provides healthcare stakeholders with a consistent and objective methodology to compare maturity models identified by different vendors. The sections in the framework include assessment of healthcare context, feasibility, integrity, completeness and actionability. Calculating subtotals across the sections enables identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the maturity model. After completing the assessment for several maturity models, users can compare their performance to provide recommendations for which maturity model to use. CONCLUSIONS We have developed an evidence-based framework to enable assessment and comparison of digital health maturity models. This work will inform an approach to implementing a suitable suite of digital health maturity models. This is a critical step as healthcare evolves towards a digital health system focused on improving the quality of care, reducing costs and improving the provider and consumer experience. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

BACKGROUND Digital health in hospital settings is viewed as a panacea for achieving the “quadruple aim” of health care, yet the outcomes have been largely inconclusive. To optimize digital health outcomes, a strategic approach is necessary, requiring digital maturity assessments. However, current approaches to assessing digital maturity have been largely insufficient, with uncertainty surrounding the dimensions to assess. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to identify the current dimensions used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature (published before December 2020) investigating maturity models used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals. A total of 29 relevant articles were retrieved, representing 27 distinct maturity models. The articles were inductively analyzed, and the maturity model dimensions were extracted and consolidated into a maturity model framework. RESULTS The consolidated maturity model framework consisted of 7 dimensions: strategy; information technology capability; interoperability; governance and management; patient-centered care; people, skills, and behavior; and data analytics. These 7 dimensions can be evaluated based on 24 respective indicators. CONCLUSIONS The maturity model framework developed for this study can be used to assess digital maturity and identify areas for improvement.

No abstract