Health Professional Digital Capabilities Frameworks: A Scoping Review.
Health Professional Digital Capabilities Frameworks: A Scoping Review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2147/jmdh.s269412
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Almond H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brice S;Almond H
“数字医疗保健专业人员”一词指的是具有额外数字能力（如信息和技术）的医疗保健专业人员。假设获得技术知识和技能，以满足数字医疗保健的现有专业标准，将吸引和授权医疗保健用户，从而提供以人为本的数字医疗保健（PCDHc），是有缺陷的。确定数字医疗保健和技术可以真正支持以人为本的医疗保健可能会导致未来的话语和实际建议，以建立以人为本的集成数字医疗保健环境。本次审查审查了目前的数字健康和信息能力框架，并确定了机会，包括额外的或替代的原则。进行了范围界定审查。在2000年至2019年期间确定了以人为本的数字医疗保健要求，数字医疗能力和能力的文献，然后进行整理和考虑。使用PRISMA方法进行合格性筛选，13篇文章符合研究纳入标准。分析采用了专题框架方法，这有助于数据管理、抽象和描述，最后是解释。分析索引五十九（59）的能力，图表十三（n13）类，映射四（n4）的主题，然后解释为调查结果。确定的四个主题是：变革管理;用户应用;数据、信息和知识;创新。这些主题认识到有机会将技术技能的应用与提供真正的PCDHc所需的能力结合起来。要维持PCDHc的目标，就必须有整体思维。作者提出，关于专业数字能力的争论在本质上仍然是“孤立的”和“家长式的”。他们还建议，向真正的PCDHc过渡需要重新调整（而不是重写）现有能力。针对个人医疗保健结果（而不是专业义务）的能力重新调整可以将视角转向真正的PCDHc系统。这一范围审查证实了数字技能将赋予所有医疗保健利益相关者权力的假设是不正确的。该综述还提请注意需要进行更多的研究，以使数字医疗系统和服务能够被设计为实现复杂的人类行为和以人为本的多个护理需求。现在比以往任何时候都更有必要将医疗保健功能与技术相结合，以确保PCDHc的实践是理论所暗示的医疗保健用户的授权之旅。
The term “digital healthcare professional” alludes to a health professional with the additional digital capabilities such as information and technology. The assumption that attaining technical knowledge and skills to meet the available professional standards in digital healthcare, will engage and empower healthcare users, thus deliver person-centered digital healthcare (PCDHc), is flawed. Identifying where digital healthcare and technologies can genuinely support person-centered care may lead to future discourse and practical suggestions to build person-centered integrated digital healthcare environments. This review examines current digital health and informatics capability frameworks and identifies the opportunity to include additional or alternative principles. A scoping review was conducted. Literature valuing person-centered digital healthcare requirements, digital health capabilities, and competencies were identified between 2000 and 2019 inclusive, then collated and considered. Using a PRISMA approach for eligibility screening, thirteen articles met the study inclusion criteria. Analysis used a thematic framework approach, which assisted in the data management, abstraction and description, and finally the explanations. Analysis indexed fifty-nine (59) capabilities, charted thirteen (n13) categories, mapped four (n4) themes, which were then interpreted as findings. The four themes identified were Change Management; User Application; Data, Information, and Knowledge; and Innovation. The themes recognize the opportunity to align the application of technical skills towards the capabilities required to deliver authentic PCDHc. Holistic mindsets are imperative in maintaining the objective of PCDHc. The authors propose that debates regarding professional digital capability persist in being “siloed” and “paternalistic” in nature. They also recommend that the transition to authentic PCDHc requires refocusing (rather than rewriting) current capabilities. The realignment of capabilities towards individual healthcare outcomes, rather than professional obligation, can steer the perspective towards a genuine PCDHc system. This scoping review confirms the assumption that digital skills will empower all healthcare stakeholders is incorrect. This review also draws attention to the need for more research to enable digital healthcare systems and services to be designed to realize complex human behaviors and multiple person-centered care requirements. Now more than ever, it is imperative to align healthcare capabilities with technologies to ensure that the practice of PCDHc is the empowering journey for the healthcare user that theory implies.