Building digital innovation capacity at a large academic medical center

Mann, David; Chokshi, Sara; Lebwohl, Rachel; Mainiero, Michael; Dinh-Le, Catherine; Driscoll, Katherine; Robinson, Steven; Egger, Helen L.

doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0088-y

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we found at our institution, the lack of a clear path to develop digital health technologies beyond telehealth was reflected in uncoordinated and siloed development largely unknown outside of the department or clinic that implemented it. This issue is one that all AMCs must tackle [13] if we are to realize the promise of these technologies to the health of our citizens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is particularly true where the focus is on rural areas, and logistical hurdles to implementation are often extensive. Several AMCs have recognized these needs and have established digital institutes or centers that foster education, skill building, and cross-disciplinary team building to support quality care delivery solutions and research [12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Establishing a digital health platform in an academic medical center supporting rural communities

Walden

Kemp

Larson-Prior

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), like many rural states, faces clinical and research obstacles to which digital innovation is seen as a promising solution. To implement digital technology, a mobile health interest group was established to lay the foundation for an enterprise-wide digital health innovation platform. To create a foundation, an interprofessional team was established, and a series of formal networking events was conducted. Three online digital health training models were developed, and a full-day regional conference was held featuring nationally recognized speakers and panel discussions with clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates involved in digital health programs at UAMS. Finally, an institution-wide survey exploring the interest in and knowledge of digital health technologies was distributed. The networking events averaged 35–45 attendees. About 100 individuals attended the regional conference with positive feedback from participants. To evaluate mHealth knowledge at the institution, a survey was completed by 257 UAMS clinicians, researchers, and staff. It revealed that there are opportunities to increase training, communication, and collaboration for digital health implementation. The inclusion of the mobile health working group in the newly formed Institute for Digital Health and Innovation provides a nexus for healthcare providers and researches to facilitate translational research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing a digital health platform in an academic medical center supporting rural communities

Walden

Kemp

Larson-Prior

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 In addition, a pilot study of academic and industry stakeholders’ attitude on technology disruption in behavioral health research found that weaknesses in one party are often complemented by strengths in the other. 12 For instance, academic partners are perceived to be less savvy with technology, an area in which industry partners generally excel. This was reflected in our study’s finding that stakeholders from both fields identified having complementary roles as the leading facilitator to collaboration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prioritizing scientific evidence (13) Misaligned goals and expectations (14) Prioritizing business outcomes (12) Prioritizing business outcomes (11) Timeline (13) Timeline (14) Responses of the stakeholder affiliated with both academia and industry are included in both groups. Table 5.…”

Section: Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authentic communication (10) Prioritizing scientific evidence 7Aligned goals and expectations 7Aligned goals and expectations (13) Complementary roles (13) Complementary roles (17) Barriers Prioritizing scientific evidence (9) Misaligned goals and expectations (15) Prioritizing business outcomes (8) Prioritizing business outcomes (13) Timeline (10) Timeline (12) expectations, conflicting scientific or business priorities and conflicting timelines as primary barriers. Overall, stakeholders from both academia and industry agreed that cross-sectoral collaborations are essential for the successful implementation of digital health initiatives.…”

Section: Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academia–industry digital health collaborations: A cross-cultural analysis of barriers and facilitators

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Development and uptake of digital health technologies benefit from cross-sectoral efforts from academia and industry. Our study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators associated with academia-industry collaborations in digital health in middle-and high-income countries. Methods: Trained personnel conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders who were active in industry, academia or both. Stakeholders were based in middle-income countries (including China) and high-income countries (including the United States) as defined by the World Bank. Interviews were conducted in the stakeholder's language of choice (Chinese, n ¼ 12; English, n ¼ 11). Qualitative interview questions elicited perspectives on stakeholders' experience with academia-industry collaboration, challenges faced, and factors that facilitated the process. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, thematically coded by bilingual coders and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: Stakeholders in both academia and industry identified complementary roles, authentic communication between partners, and clearly outlined goals or expectations prior to the collaboration as primary facilitators for success. Misaligned goals or expectations, differences in timelines for productivity and difficulties balancing expectations for business outcomes versus generation of scientific evidence were identified as primary barriers. Stakeholders in highincome countries reported inauthentic communication as a significant barrier to collaboration, whereas those in middle-income countries did not. Conclusion: Outlining and communicating openly about goals and expectations for timeline and priorities as well as establishing complementary roles will facilitate fruitful academia-industry collaborations in the future. Best practices for communication styles may be dependent on the cultural setting, and thus should be adopted accordingly.

show abstract

Perceptions of Factors Associated With Sustainability of Health Care Innovation Centers

Krelle,

Martinez,

Garry

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceInnovation centers in US health care systems are increasingly common but variably successful and sustainable. Few studies have examined how and why some centers achieve sustainable success but others do not.ObjectiveTo explore whether and how innovation centers in US health care systems are able to successfully sustain themselves over multiple years.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this qualitative study, semistructured, qualitative interviews of leaders at 9 innovation centers across the US were conducted from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from December 2020 to April 2021 using qualitative methods and a deductive framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Centers were identified through purposeful sampling. The 9 study centers had a mean age of 6 years (range, 2-15 years); most were affiliated with an academic teaching hospital and half with a medical school. Two were wholly separate from the health care system. Two-thirds had fewer than 10 full-time staff members.ExposuresAll interviewees were staff of a US-based innovation center. This study did not evaluate particular interventions or innovations.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPerceptions of and views on factors associated with the success and sustainability of innovation centers.ResultsStaff interviewed at 9 innovation centers across the US described 3 key activities that appeared to be associated with long-term sustainability: facilitating innovation projects that were valued for quality improvement and cost avoidance, not just return on investment; acting as networking nodes for their institutions; and upskilling staff. These activities were associated with improved institutional culture. Two structural characteristics underpinned successful centers: finding an effective balance between being “internal” and being “external” to the organization and providing practical support and skills otherwise lacking within the wider institution.Conclusions and RelevanceThis qualitative study of 9 innovation centers explored how centers sustained themselves within US health care institutions and showed that success was often associated with interpersonal relationships and cultural benefits. Independent financial sustainability was not always essential to longevity; systems also valued how centers could create cultures of innovation and upskill staff.

show abstract

Building digital innovation capacity at a large academic medical center

Cited by 16 publications

References 8 publications

Establishing a digital health platform in an academic medical center supporting rural communities

Establishing a digital health platform in an academic medical center supporting rural communities

Academia–industry digital health collaborations: A cross-cultural analysis of barriers and facilitators

Perceptions of Factors Associated With Sustainability of Health Care Innovation Centers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About