Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(05): 991-1001
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1757554
AIDH Summit 2022

Evaluating Digital Health Capability at Scale Using the Digital Health Indicator

Leanna Woods
1   Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
2   Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre, Sydney, Australia
3   Queensland Digital Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
,
Rebekah Eden
4   School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
,
Andrew Pearce
5   Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Singapore, Singapore
,
Yu Ching Ides Wong
6   Prevention Division, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia
,
Lakshmi Jayan
5   Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Singapore, Singapore
,
Damian Green
7   eHealth Queensland, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia
,
Keith McNeil
6   Prevention Division, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia
,
Clair Sullivan
1   Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
3   Queensland Digital Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
8   Digital Metro North, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Health service providers must understand their digital health capability if they are to drive digital transformation in a strategic and informed manner. Little is known about the assessment and benchmarking of digital maturity or capability at scale across an entire jurisdiction. The public health care system across the state of Queensland, Australia has an ambitious 10-year digital transformation strategy.

Objective The aim of this research was to evaluate the digital health capability in Queensland to inform digital health strategy and investment.

Methods The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Digital Health Indicator (DHI) was used via a cross-sectional survey design to assess four core dimensions of digital health transformation: governance and workforce; interoperability; person-enabled health; and predictive analytics across an entire jurisdiction simultaneously. The DHI questionnaire was completed by each health care system (n = 16) within Queensland in February to July 2021. DHI is scored 0 to 400 and dimension score is 0 to 100.

Results The results reveal a variation in DHI scores reflecting the diverse stages of health care digitization across the state. The average DHI score across sites was 143 (range 78–193; SD35.3) which is similar to other systems in the Oceania region and global public systems but below the global private average. Governance and workforce was on average the highest scoring dimension (x̅= 54), followed by interoperability (x̅ = 46), person-enabled health (x̅ = 36), and predictive analytics (x̅ = 30).

Conclusion The findings were incorporated into the new digital health strategy for the jurisdiction. As one of the largest single simultaneous assessments of digital health capability globally, the findings and lessons learnt offer insights for policy makers and organizational managers.

Keywords

digital health - digital capability - digital maturity - digital hospitals - digital transformation - health information management - organizational characteristics

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and received multisite ethics approval from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital [ID: HREC/2020/QRBW/66895], and research governance approvals from all sites.




Publication History

Received: 29 April 2022

Accepted: 24 August 2022

Article published online:
19 October 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organization. Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. World Health Organization; 2019. :2020–2010
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2025. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Martin G, Clarke J, Liew F. et al. Evaluating the impact of organisational digital maturity on clinical outcomes in secondary care in England. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kolukısa Tarhan A, Garousi V, Turetken O, Söylemez M, Garossi S. Maturity assessment and maturity models in health care: a multivocal literature review. Digit Health 2020; 6: 2055207620914772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Krasuska M, Williams R, Sheikh A. et al. Technological capabilities to assess digital excellence in hospitals in high performing health care systems: international eDelphi exercise. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (08) e17022
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cresswell K, Sheikh A, Krasuska M. et al. Reconceptualising the digital maturity of health systems. Lancet Digit Health 2019; 1 (05) e200-e201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Carvalho JV, Rocha Á, Abreu A. Maturity assessment methodology for HISMM – Hospital Information System Maturity Model. J Med Syst 2019; 43 (02) 35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Carvalho JV, Rocha Á, Abreu A. Maturity models of healthcare information systems and technologies: a literature review. J Med Syst 2016; 40 (06) 131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Vidal Carvalho J, Rocha Á, Abreu A. Maturity of hospital information systems: most important influencing factors. Health Informatics J 2019; 25 (03) 617-631
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Marwaha JS, Landman AB, Brat GA, Dunn T, Gordon WJ. Deploying digital health tools within large, complex health systems: key considerations for adoption and implementation. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5 (01) 13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Snowdon A. Digital Health: A Framework for Healthcare Transformation. Illinois, USA: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society; 2020
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Duncan R, Eden R, Woods L, Wong I, Sullivan C. Synthesizing dimensions of digital maturity in hospitals: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24 (03) e32994
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Queensland Health. Digital Health Strategic Vision for Queensland 2026. Digital Strategy Branch eHealth. Queensland, Brisbane: State of Queensland (Queensland Health); 2017
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Queensland Department of Health. Department of Health Annual Report 2020–2021. Queensland: The State of Queensland (Department of Health); 2021
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Queensland Health. The Health of Queenslanders 2020: Report of the Chief Health Officer Queensland. Brisbane: State of Queensland (Queensland Health); 2020
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Burton-Jones A, Akhlaghpour S, Ayre S, Barde P, Staib A, Sullivan C. Changing the conversation on evaluating digital transformation in healthcare: insights from an institutional analysis. Inf Organ 2020; 30 (01) 100255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Staib A, Sullivan C. Surveying perceptions of the early impacts of an integrated electronic medical record across a hospital and healthcare service. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44 (05) 690-698
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Australian Government Department of Health. Health Workforce Locator. Published (no date). Accessed March 07, 2022 at: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/apps-and-tools/health-workforce-locator/health-workforce-locator
    PubMed
  • 19 Kaplan B. The computer prescription: Medical computing, public policy, and views of history. Sci Technol Human Values 1995; 20 (01) 5-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Scott I, Staib A, Sullivan C. Effects of eHealth on hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature. Aust Health Rev 2018; 42 (05) 568-578
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Burridge LH, Foster M, Jones R, Geraghty T, Atresh S. Nurses' perspectives of person-centered spinal cord injury rehabilitation in a digital hospital. Rehabil Nurs 2020; 45 (05) 263-270
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Canfell OJ, Davidson K, Woods L. et al. Precision public health for noncommunicable diseases: an emerging strategic roadmap and multinational use cases. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 854525
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Burmann A, Meister S. Practical Application of Maturity Models in Healthcare: Findings from Multiple Digitalization Case Studies. Paper presented at: HEALTHINF2021
    PubMed
  • 24 Blondiau A, Mettler T, Winter R. Designing and implementing maturity models in hospitals: an experience report from 5 years of research. Health Informatics J 2016; 22 (03) 758-767
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Analytics HIMSS. EMRAM: A strategic roadmap for effective EMR adoption and maturity. Published 2017; 2021. Accessed March 31, 2021 at: https://www.himssanalytics.org/emram
    PubMed
  • 26 van Poelgeest R, Heida J-P, Pettit L, de Leeuw RJ, Schrijvers G. The association between eHealth capabilities and the quality and safety of health care in the Netherlands: comparison of HIMSS analytics EMRAM data with Elsevier's ‘The Best Hospitals’ data. J Med Syst 2015; 39 (09) 90
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kharrazi H, Gonzalez CP, Lowe KB, Huerta TR, Ford EW. Forecasting the maturation of electronic health record functions among US hospitals: retrospective analysis and predictive model. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (08) e10458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med 2014; 12 (06) 573-576
    Search in Google Scholar