Kathrin Cresswell, Franziska Jahn, Line Silsand, Leanna Woods, Tim Postema, Marion Logan, Sevala Malkic, Elske Ammenwerth
{"title":"评估医院数字化成熟度:比较五国国家方法的观点。","authors":"Kathrin Cresswell, Franziska Jahn, Line Silsand, Leanna Woods, Tim Postema, Marion Logan, Sevala Malkic, Elske Ammenwerth","doi":"10.2196/57858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital maturity assessments can inform strategic decision-making. However, national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of health systems are in their infancy, and there is limited insight into the context and processes associated with such assessments. This viewpoint article describes and compares national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals. We reviewed 5 national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals in Queensland (Australia), Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland, exploring context, drivers, and approaches to measure digital maturity in each country. We observed a common focus on interoperability, and assessment findings were used to shape national digital health strategies. Indicators were broadly aligned, but 4 of 5 countries developed their own tailored indicator sets. Key topic areas across countries included interoperability, capabilities, leadership, governance, and infrastructure. Analysis of indicators was centralized, but data were shared with participating organizations. Only 1 setting conducted an academic evaluation. Major challenges of digital maturity assessment included the high cost and time required for data collection, questions about measurement accuracy, difficulties in consistent long-term tracking of indicators, and potential biases due to self-reporting. We also observed tensions between the practical feasibility of the process with the depth and breadth required by the complexity of the topic and tensions between national and local data needs. There are several key challenges in assessing digital maturity in hospitals nationally that influence the validity and reliability of output. These need to be explicitly acknowledged when making decisions informed by assessments and monitored over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e57858"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11926443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Digital Maturity of Hospitals: Viewpoint Comparing National Approaches in Five Countries.\",\"authors\":\"Kathrin Cresswell, Franziska Jahn, Line Silsand, Leanna Woods, Tim Postema, Marion Logan, Sevala Malkic, Elske Ammenwerth\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/57858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Digital maturity assessments can inform strategic decision-making. However, national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of health systems are in their infancy, and there is limited insight into the context and processes associated with such assessments. This viewpoint article describes and compares national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals. We reviewed 5 national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals in Queensland (Australia), Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland, exploring context, drivers, and approaches to measure digital maturity in each country. We observed a common focus on interoperability, and assessment findings were used to shape national digital health strategies. Indicators were broadly aligned, but 4 of 5 countries developed their own tailored indicator sets. Key topic areas across countries included interoperability, capabilities, leadership, governance, and infrastructure. Analysis of indicators was centralized, but data were shared with participating organizations. Only 1 setting conducted an academic evaluation. Major challenges of digital maturity assessment included the high cost and time required for data collection, questions about measurement accuracy, difficulties in consistent long-term tracking of indicators, and potential biases due to self-reporting. We also observed tensions between the practical feasibility of the process with the depth and breadth required by the complexity of the topic and tensions between national and local data needs. There are several key challenges in assessing digital maturity in hospitals nationally that influence the validity and reliability of output. These need to be explicitly acknowledged when making decisions informed by assessments and monitored over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"e57858\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11926443/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/57858\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/57858","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing Digital Maturity of Hospitals: Viewpoint Comparing National Approaches in Five Countries.
Digital maturity assessments can inform strategic decision-making. However, national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of health systems are in their infancy, and there is limited insight into the context and processes associated with such assessments. This viewpoint article describes and compares national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals. We reviewed 5 national approaches to assessing the digital maturity of hospitals in Queensland (Australia), Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland, exploring context, drivers, and approaches to measure digital maturity in each country. We observed a common focus on interoperability, and assessment findings were used to shape national digital health strategies. Indicators were broadly aligned, but 4 of 5 countries developed their own tailored indicator sets. Key topic areas across countries included interoperability, capabilities, leadership, governance, and infrastructure. Analysis of indicators was centralized, but data were shared with participating organizations. Only 1 setting conducted an academic evaluation. Major challenges of digital maturity assessment included the high cost and time required for data collection, questions about measurement accuracy, difficulties in consistent long-term tracking of indicators, and potential biases due to self-reporting. We also observed tensions between the practical feasibility of the process with the depth and breadth required by the complexity of the topic and tensions between national and local data needs. There are several key challenges in assessing digital maturity in hospitals nationally that influence the validity and reliability of output. These need to be explicitly acknowledged when making decisions informed by assessments and monitored over time.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades.
As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor.
Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.