Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation

  • Boyd M. Knosp (a1), William K. Barnett (a2), Nicholas R. Anderson (a3) and Peter J. Embi (a2)
  • Please note a correction has been issued for this article.

Abstract

This paper proposes the creation and application of maturity models to guide institutional strategic investment in research informatics and information technology (research IT) and to provide the ability to measure readiness for clinical and research infrastructure as well as sustainability of expertise. Conducting effective and efficient research in health science increasingly relies upon robust research IT systems and capabilities. Academic health centers are increasing investments in health IT systems to address operational pressures, including rapidly growing data, technological advances, and increasing security and regulatory challenges associated with data access requirements. Current approaches for planning and investment in research IT infrastructure vary across institutions and lack comparable guidance for evaluating investments, resulting in inconsistent approaches to research IT implementation across peer academic health centers as well as uncertainty in linking research IT investments to institutional goals. Maturity models address these issues through coupling the assessment of current organizational state with readiness for deployment of potential research IT investment, which can inform leadership strategy. Pilot work in maturity model development has ranged from using them as a catalyst for engaging medical school IT leaders in planning at a single institution to developing initial maturity indices that have been applied and refined across peer medical schools.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: B. M. Knosp, MS, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 228 CMAB, Iowa City, IA 5224, USA. Email: boyd-knosp@uiowa.eduA previous error has been corrected in this article, please see https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.374.

References

Hide All
1.Stephens, K, et al. Implementing partnership-driven clinical federated electronic health record data sharing networks. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2016; 93: 2633.
2.Embi, PJ, Payne, PR. Evidence generating medicine: redefining the research-practice relationship to complete the evidence cycle. Medical Care 2013; 51(Suppl. 3): S87S91.
3.Smoyer, WE, Embi, PJ, Moffatt-Bruce, S. Creating local learning health systems: think globally, act locally. JAMA 2016; 316: 24812482.
4.Bernstam, EV, et al. Synergies and distinctions between computational disciplines in biomedical research: perspective from the clinical and translational science award programs. Academic Medicine 2009; 84: 964970.
5.Embi, PJ, Payne, PR. Clinical research informatics: challenges, opportunities and definition for an emerging domain. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16: 316327.
6.Murphy, SN, et al. Current state of information technologies for the clinical research enterprise across academic medical centers. Clinical and Translational Science 2012; 5: 281284.
7.National Cancer Institute. Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel [Internet], 2018 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative/blue-ribbon-panel)
8.Clinical & Translational Science Awards Program, Center for Leading Innovation & Collaboration. Established common metrics [Internet], 2018 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://clic-ctsa.org/common_metrics/established-common-metrics)
9.National Institutes of Health. NIH data sharing policy [Internet], 2018 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/)
10.National Institutes of Health. NIH strategic plan for data science [Internet], 2018 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://datascience.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NIH_Strategic_Plan_for_Data_Science_Final_508.pdf)
11.Bowley, R. Linked in official blog, the fastest-growing jobs in the U.S. based on linkedin data [Internet], 2017 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://blog.linkedin.com/2017/december/7/the-fastest-growing-jobs-in-the-u-s-based-on-linkedin-data)
12.Embi, PJ, et al. Integrating governance of research informatics and health care IT across an enterprise: experiences from the trenches. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science Proceedings 2013; 2013: 6062.
13.Hersh, WR, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Medical Care 2013; 51(Suppl. 3): S30S37.
14.Embi, PJ, Tsevat, J. Commentary: the relative research unit: providing incentives for clinician participation in research activities. Academic Medicine 2012; 87: 1114.
15.Payne, PR, Embi, PJ, Sen, CK. Translational informatics: enabling high-throughput research paradigms. Physiological Genomics 2009; 39: 131140.
16.Weiner, MG, Embi, PJ. Toward reuse of clinical data for research and quality improvement: the end of the beginning? Annals of Internal Medicine 2009; 151: 359360.
17.Obeid, J, et al. Sustainability considerations for clinical and translational research informatics infrastructure. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, doi:10.1017/cts.2018.332.
18.Wilcox, A, et al. Sustainability considerations for health research and analytic data infrastructures. eGEMs 2014; 2: 1113.
19.Payne, PR, et al. People, organizational, and leadership factors impacting informatics support for clinical and translational research. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2013; 13: 20.
20.Sanchez-Pinto, LN, et al. The emerging role of the chief research informatics officer in academic health centers. Applied Clinical Informatics 2017; 8: 845853.
21.Nolan, R. Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis. Communications of the ACM 1973; 16: 399405.
22.Mutafelija, B, Stromberg, H. Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI. Boston, MA: Artech House, 2003.
23.Carvalho, JV, Rocha, A, Abreu, A. Maturity models of healthcare information systems and technologies: a literature review. Journal of Medical Systems 2016; 40: 131.
24.Crosby, P. Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
25.HIMSS. HIMSS analytics [Internet], 2017 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (http://www.himssanalytics.org/)
26.Grajek, S. The digitization of higher education: charting the course. EDUCAUSE Review [Internet], 2016 [cited Oct 14, 2018]. (https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/12/the-digitization-of-higher-education-charting-the-course)

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Knosp et al. supplementary material
Knosp et al. supplementary material 1

 PDF (66 KB)
66 KB
PDF
Supplementary materials

Knosp et al. supplementary material
Knosp et al. supplementary material 2

 PDF (50 KB)
50 KB

Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation

  • Boyd M. Knosp (a1), William K. Barnett (a2), Nicholas R. Anderson (a3) and Peter J. Embi (a2)
  • Please note a correction has been issued for this article.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

A correction has been issued for this article: