A maturity model framework for integrated virtual care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Remote patient monitoring (RPM) and virtual visits have the potential to transform care delivery and outcomes but require intentional planning around how these technologies contribute to integrated care. Since maturity models are useful frameworks for understanding current performance and motivating progress, the authors developed a model describing the features of RPM that can advance integrated care. Design/methodology/approach This work was led by St. Joseph's Health System Centre for Integrated Care in collaboration with clinical and programme leads and frontline staff offering RPM services as part of Connected Health Hamilton in Ontario, Canada. Development of the maturity model was informed by a review of existing telehealth maturity models, online stakeholder meetings, and online interviews with clinical leads, programme leads, and staff. Findings The maturity model comprises 4 maturity levels and 17 sub-domains organised into 5 domains: Technology, Team Organisation, Programme Support, Integrated Information Systems, and Performance and Quality. An implementation pillars checklist identifies additional considerations for sustaining programmes at any maturity level. Finally, the authors apply one of Connected Health Hamilton's RPM programmes to the Team Organisation domain as an example of the maturity model in action. Originality/value This work extends previous telehealth maturity models by focussing on the arrangement of resources, teams, and processes needed to support the delivery of integrated care. Although the model is inspired by local programmes, the model is highly transferable to other RPM programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it