Reveals a new framework for assessing workforce needs in digital health, suggesting improved training outcomes.
Objective Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) has become a critical enabler of modern digital health policy, underpinning national reforms relating to electronic health records, data exchange, and real-time clinical decision support. However, despite its central role in digital transformation, FHIR implementation often falters because national workforces lack the capabilities required to operationalise interoperability mandates. This paper presents a policy-aligned methodological framework for conducting a national workforce needs assessment to inform interdisciplinary FHIR training programs. The framework is designed to support digital health policy implementation by systematically identifying capability gaps and guiding evidence-based training investment. Methods We propose a two-step needs assessment framework integrating general and targeted assessments. The general assessment identifies broad training needs through qualitative interviews, surveys, and market scans, while the targeted assessment refines course offerings based on participant demand, workforce capacity, and contextual factors. A mixed-methods approach combines qualitative thematic analysis and descriptive statistics to triangulate findings. A structured five-component decision-making framework is presented to support transparent training prioritisation aligned with national digital health strategy. Key features This framework is designed to support evidence-based, adaptable training programs aligned with national digital health priorities. This framework addresses identified gaps in existing methodological approaches and is intended to offer advantages over single-phase assessment methods. Conclusion This paper presents a theory-informed methodological framework for designing FHIR training programs, aimed at addressing evolving workforce needs and supporting digital health interoperability globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaw et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: