评估医院数字化成熟度:比较五国国家方法的观点。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Internet Research Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.2196/57858
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字成熟度评估可以为战略决策提供信息。然而,评估卫生系统数字化成熟度的国家方法尚处于起步阶段,对与此类评估相关的背景和过程的了解有限。这篇观点文章描述并比较了评估医院数字化成熟度的国家方法。我们回顾了澳大利亚昆士兰、德国、荷兰、挪威和苏格兰5个国家评估医院数字化成熟度的方法,探讨了每个国家衡量数字化成熟度的背景、驱动因素和方法。我们观察到人们普遍关注互操作性,评估结果被用于制定国家数字卫生战略。指标大致一致,但5个国家中有4个制定了自己的量身定制的指标集。各国的关键主题领域包括互操作性、能力、领导力、治理和基础设施。指标的分析是集中的,但数据是与参与组织共享的。仅有1个设置进行了学术评价。数字化成熟度评估的主要挑战包括数据收集所需的高成本和时间、测量准确性的问题、指标长期跟踪的一致性困难以及由于自我报告而产生的潜在偏差。我们还观察到,该过程的实际可行性与主题的复杂性所要求的深度和广度之间存在紧张关系,而国家和地方数据需求之间存在紧张关系。在评估影响产出有效性和可靠性的全国医院数字化成熟度方面,存在几个关键挑战。在根据评估作出决策时,需要明确承认这些问题,并对其进行长期监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of Telemedicine vs Face-to-Face Consultation in Fighting COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Study of Adult Patients With COVID-19 in a Primary Care Setting. A Digital Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support Program Integrated With Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial. EPOCA Tele-Monitoring System for Older Adults at High Risk of Hospitalization: Budget Impact and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. A Self-Guided App-Based Mindfulness Intervention for Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Individuals Who Experience Discrimination-Related Mental Health Symptoms: Randomized Controlled Trial. Evaluating Encoder and Decoder Models for Extended Clinical Concept Recognition in Japanese Clinical Texts: Comparative Study With Weighted Soft Matching.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1