Maturity assessment and maturity models in health care: A multivocal literature review

Abstract

Background The maturity of practices and infrastructure in the health care domain directly impacts the quality and efficiency of health care services. Therefore, various health care administrations (e.g. from hospital management to the nationwide health authority) need to assess and improve their operational maturity. Objective This study aimed to review and classify studies that propose/use maturity assessment or maturity models (MMs) as a vehicle to achieve operational excellence in the health care domain. Method To achieve this objective, we performed a multivocal literature review (MLR) – a form of systematic review that includes data from the grey literature (e.g. white papers and online documents) in addition to formal, peer-reviewed literature. Results Based on 101 sources, 80 from peer-reviewed literature and 21 from the grey literature, we identified 68 different MMs on, for example, telemedicine, care pathways and digital imaging. We reviewed them with respect to various aspects, including types of research and contribution, list of MMs proposed/used with their subject areas, elements of maturity/capability and application scope or scale. In the synthesis of empirical benefits of using MMs, two were found to be significant: (a) identifying issues and providing guidance for improvement in health care contexts, and (b) improving efficiency, effectiveness, performance and productivity. Conclusion This MLR provides an overview of the landscape and serves as an index to the vast body of knowledge in this area. Our review creates an opportunity to cope with the challenges in obtaining an overview of the state-of-the-art and practice, choosing the most suitable models or developing new models with further specialties.

Synthesizing Dimensions of Digital Maturity in Hospitals: Systematic Review

“…Second, other reviews have investigated maturity model dimensions, yet had aggregate dimensions that were inappropriately broad. For instance, Tarhan et al [ 47 ] developed a consolidated list of only four maturity model dimensions: business process, technology, people, and other. Their business process dimension incorporated government regulations, their technology dimension was aligned with the IT capability dimension identified in this study, and their people dimension focused largely on patient safety culture and therefore differed from the people, skills, and behavior dimension identified in this study, which examined individual-level and organizational-level factors.…”

Assessing Health Data Security Risks in Global Health Partnerships: Development of a Conceptual Framework

“…The development of this conceptual framework is an attempt to better understand the many variables that might affect health data security in a given country. There are a number of existing models for assessing the maturity of HIT and data security [ 94 ]. However, most of these models have been developed or applied in high-income countries and make assumptions about the legal, regulatory, and technical capacity already in place; these assumptions often do not hold true in LMICs.…”

“…The health systems of high-income countries (and the social, political, and economic forces that support them) can vary significantly from those in LMICs. For example, in the review by Tarhan et al [ 94 ], the authors provide the full list of countries in which the maturity models they reviewed were developed and applied. The average WHO health performance index of these countries was 0.813 (SD 0.17), whereas the average health performance index of CIS countries is 0.612 (SD 0.12; P =.001 by 2-tailed, 2 sample t test) [ 38 ].…”

ADA-CMM: A Capability Maturity Model for Advanced Data Analytics

“…Finally, ADA-CMM can be used to benchmark and identify the organizational ADA performance compared to industry standards. Companies use maturity models to deal with business problems through ADA in a variety of industries ranging from manufacturing to services, education, and healthcare [50], [51].…”