Abstract
Digital transformation within the National Health Service (NHS) represents a critical strategic priority, yet many programmes fail to achieve their intended outcomes. This dissertation synthesises existing literature to examine why NHS digital transformation projects stall and identifies governance patterns that predict successful delivery. Through systematic literature review, the analysis reveals that project failure typically stems from over-centralised control, fragmented institutional responsibilities, inadequate funding structures, and conceptualising digital initiatives as technology deployments rather than service transformation. Conversely, successful programmes demonstrate consistent governance characteristics: protected funding with local matching contributions, a ‘middle-out’ governance model balancing national standards with local autonomy, embedded clinical digital leadership, and outcome-focused oversight emphasising learning networks. The findings indicate that sustainable digital transformation requires fundamental reconceptualisation of governance arrangements, moving away from rigid, technology-centric approaches towards adaptive frameworks that prioritise clinical engagement, workforce development, and continuous improvement. These insights offer practical implications for policymakers, NHS leaders, and international health systems pursuing similar digital ambitions, whilst highlighting the need for longitudinal research examining how governance interventions translate into improved patient outcomes.
Introduction
The digitisation of healthcare services represents one of the most significant organisational challenges facing modern health systems. Within England’s NHS, successive governments have committed substantial resources to digital transformation, recognising its potential to improve patient safety, enhance care quality, and increase operational efficiency. Despite these ambitions, the NHS’s digital journey has been characterised by high-profile failures, cost overruns, and unrealised benefits that have eroded public confidence and professional trust in technology-enabled change.
The most prominent example remains the National Programme for IT (NPfIT), launched in 2002 as the world’s largest civil information technology project. Intended to create integrated electronic health records across England, the programme was ultimately dismantled in 2011 following expenditure exceeding £10 billion without achieving its core objectives (Justinia, 2017). This experience left lasting institutional trauma, creating risk aversion among commissioners and establishing cautionary narratives that continue to influence contemporary digital initiatives.
Subsequent programmes have attempted to learn from NPfIT’s failures. The Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) programme, launched in 2016, adopted a different approach by designating high-performing trusts as exemplars whilst creating mechanisms for knowledge transfer to ‘Fast Follower’ organisations. The Digital Aspirant programme extended this model, whilst various structural reforms—including the creation and subsequent absorption of NHSX—have sought to clarify accountability for digital strategy. Yet despite these efforts, significant variation persists in digital maturity across NHS organisations, and many transformation initiatives continue to underperform.
Understanding why digital projects stall—and identifying governance patterns associated with successful delivery—carries substantial academic and practical significance. Academically, this topic intersects organisational theory, public administration, and health informatics, offering insights into how large, complex institutions manage technological change. Practically, the stakes are considerable: failed digital initiatives waste finite NHS resources, delay improvements in patient care, and contribute to workforce frustration. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored digital capabilities’ importance, with services like NHS Test and Trace exposing persistent governance weaknesses whilst simultaneously demonstrating the potential for rapid digital innovation when barriers are removed.
This dissertation addresses these challenges by synthesising existing evidence on NHS digital transformation governance. It examines both macro-level policy factors and meso-level organisational dynamics that influence project outcomes, providing an evidence-based framework for understanding what distinguishes successful programmes from those that stall.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this dissertation is to examine the factors contributing to NHS digital transformation project failure and to identify governance patterns that predict successful delivery.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the investigation:
1. To critically examine system-level governance factors that contribute to NHS digital transformation project failure, including centralisation, institutional fragmentation, and funding arrangements.
2. To analyse organisational and project-level barriers to successful digital implementation within NHS contexts, with particular attention to leadership, workforce engagement, and project conceptualisation.
3. To identify and characterise governance patterns consistently associated with successful digital transformation delivery across NHS programmes.
4. To synthesise findings into a coherent framework offering practical guidance for policymakers and NHS leaders seeking to improve digital transformation outcomes.
5. To identify gaps in current understanding and propose directions for future research in this domain.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic literature, government reports, and evaluations of NHS digital programmes. This approach is appropriate given the research questions’ scope, which require consolidating evidence across multiple programmes, timeframes, and analytical perspectives to identify patterns and generate insights applicable across contexts.
The literature search strategy targeted academic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using search terms combining ‘NHS’, ‘digital transformation’, ‘governance’, ‘electronic health records’, ‘implementation’, and related terminology. Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of key articles and examining grey literature from NHS England, the King’s Fund, and relevant government departments. Inclusion criteria prioritised peer-reviewed empirical studies, systematic reviews, and authoritative policy analyses published from 2010 onwards, ensuring contemporary relevance whilst capturing learning from NPfIT’s dismantling.
The analytical approach followed principles of narrative synthesis, organising findings thematically according to the research objectives. Studies were categorised according to their focus—system-level governance, organisational factors, or programme evaluations—and key findings extracted and compared across sources. Particular attention was paid to evaluations of specific programmes, including NPfIT, GDE, Digital Aspirant, and Test and Trace, as these provide empirical grounding for broader theoretical claims.
Methodological limitations must be acknowledged. Literature synthesis relies on the quality and comprehensiveness of available evidence, and publication bias may mean unsuccessful initiatives receive less scholarly attention than high-profile failures or apparent successes. Additionally, defining ‘success’ in digital transformation is inherently complex, with different studies employing varying outcome measures. Where possible, this analysis prioritises studies employing rigorous evaluation methodologies and acknowledges definitional variations when comparing findings.
Literature review
Conceptualising digital transformation in healthcare
Digital transformation in healthcare extends beyond technology implementation to encompass fundamental redesign of care processes, workflows, and organisational structures. Duncan et al. (2022) emphasise that digital maturity represents a multidimensional construct, incorporating infrastructure, governance, workforce capabilities, and outcome measurement. This conceptualisation distinguishes transformation from mere digitisation—the latter involving technology adoption without accompanying service change.
Benjamin and Potts (2018) draw instructive parallels between government digital transformation more broadly and digital health specifically, noting that successful initiatives treat technology as an enabler of service redesign rather than an end in itself. This distinction proves crucial for understanding NHS failures, many of which treated digital projects as IT deployments rather than service transformation, leading to underinvestment in workflow redesign, behavioural change, and benefits realisation.
The European context provides useful comparative perspective. Ricciardi et al. (2019) examined digital health governance across European Union member states, identifying common challenges including interoperability, data protection, and professional resistance. Their analysis emphasises that governance frameworks must balance standardisation enabling data exchange with flexibility accommodating local healthcare contexts—a tension particularly acute within the NHS given its organisational complexity.
System-level governance failures: lessons from NPfIT
The National Programme for IT remains the most extensively analysed NHS digital initiative, offering cautionary lessons about centralised governance. Justinia (2017) provides a comprehensive post-mortem, identifying multiple interrelated failure factors. The programme’s top-down architecture, which imposed uniform solutions across diverse NHS organisations, generated lack of local ownership and weak user trust. Clinicians perceived the system as designed without adequate attention to their workflow requirements, whilst local IT teams found themselves implementing solutions they had not selected and could not meaningfully influence.
Beyond technical and operational failures, NPfIT suffered from poor change management. The programme underestimated the organisational transformation required to realise benefits from electronic systems, focusing resources on software deployment whilst neglecting training, workflow redesign, and cultural change necessary for successful adoption. This technology-centric approach reflected governance arrangements that prioritised contractual compliance over clinical benefit, with accountability structures oriented towards suppliers rather than users.
The programme’s eventual dismantling created lasting institutional consequences. Whilst releasing trusts from problematic contracts, the policy shift towards ‘letting many flowers bloom’ created new challenges. Without clear national direction, commissioners became risk-averse, hesitant to invest in digital infrastructure given NPfIT’s high-profile failure. This environment facilitated proliferation of incompatible local systems, widening digital divides between organisations and creating interoperability challenges that persist today (Asthana, Jones and Sheaff, 2019; Cresswell, Williams and Sheikh, 2020).
Institutional fragmentation and accountability gaps
The post-NPfIT landscape generated institutional fragmentation that created its own governance challenges. Multiple bodies—including NHS Digital, NHS England and NHS Improvement, and NHSX—held overlapping responsibilities for digital strategy, creating unclear accountability and duplicated effort. Areal and Sheppy (2021) analyse these dynamics through examination of NHS Test and Trace, arguing that fragmented responsibilities undermined programme coherence and enabled accountability evasion when outcomes disappointed.
This fragmentation manifests practically through misaligned reporting requirements that divert organisational effort from implementation. Trusts face multiple, sometimes contradictory, demands from different national bodies, creating administrative burden without corresponding benefit. Krasuska et al. (2021) document how heavy reporting requirements stifle innovation, particularly when central metrics fail to match local priorities. Organisations find themselves optimising for compliance rather than outcome achievement, demonstrating how governance arrangements intended to ensure accountability can paradoxically undermine it.
Cresswell, Williams and Sheikh (2020) highlight the resulting digital divide between NHS trusts. Well-resourced organisations with existing digital capabilities can navigate complex governance environments more effectively, attracting additional investment and talent. Meanwhile, less mature organisations struggle with basic infrastructure, lacking capacity to engage with sophisticated governance requirements. This dynamic concentrates digital advancement amongst already-advantaged trusts, potentially widening rather than narrowing inequalities in care quality.
Funding structures and sustainability challenges
Funding arrangements significantly influence digital transformation outcomes. Cresswell, Sheikh and Williams (2021) examine how funding models shape programme sustainability, finding that short-term, thinly-spread funding undermines digital initiatives in multiple ways. Projects dependent on time-limited grants face pressure to demonstrate quick wins, potentially prioritising visible but superficial changes over deeper transformation. Staff hired on temporary contracts lack job security, creating retention challenges and limiting knowledge accumulation. When funding ends, initiatives frequently regress as attention shifts to new priorities.
Protected, matched funding models demonstrate superior outcomes. Requiring local financial contributions creates internal priority and legitimacy for digital initiatives, signalling organisational commitment beyond compliance with external requirements. Local match requirements also generate scrutiny from trust boards and finance committees, providing governance pressure that can improve project discipline. The GDE programme incorporated such matching requirements, and evaluations suggest this contributed to stronger local ownership compared with centrally-mandated approaches (Krasuska et al., 2021).
However, funding alone proves insufficient. Cripps and Scarbrough (2022) argue that conventional approaches to making digital health solutions sustainable focus excessively on financial models whilst neglecting organisational and cultural factors. Their practitioner-focused analysis emphasises that sustained benefits require ongoing investment in adaptation, training, and improvement—activities that project-based funding rarely accommodates. Governance arrangements must therefore address sustainability from programme inception rather than treating it as a subsequent consideration.
Organisational leadership and workforce engagement
Leadership capabilities significantly influence digital transformation outcomes. Acharya et al. (2022) evaluate the NHS Digital Academy, a leadership development programme creating a network of clinically-trained digital leaders. Their mixed-methods evaluation finds that programme graduates demonstrate enhanced capabilities in driving local transformation, acting as distributed change agents within their organisations. The programme’s emphasis on clinical rather than technical expertise reflects recognition that successful digital transformation requires leaders who understand both healthcare delivery and technology possibilities.
Strong Chief Clinical Information Officer (CCIO) and Chief Nursing Information Officer (CNIO) roles correlate with more sustained transformation. These positions bridge clinical and technical domains, translating strategic digital ambitions into operationally relevant implementations. Krasuska et al. (2021) identify embedded clinical digital leadership as a key success factor within GDE sites, enabling responsive adaptation to clinical feedback and building professional trust in digital initiatives.
Workforce engagement extends beyond designated leaders. Bidmead and McShane (2021) examine barriers and facilitators to digital solution implementation, finding that limited staff engagement impedes adoption even when technical implementation succeeds. Digital champions—frontline staff tasked with promoting technology use—frequently lack authority to address workflow barriers or influence resource allocation. This powerlessness undermines their effectiveness, as colleagues recognise their limited capacity to resolve implementation challenges.
Zaman, Viragos and Zygiaris (2020) provide a dynamic analysis of change processes within NHS digital transformation, documenting how end-user perceptions evolve through implementation. Their findings emphasise that successful projects maintain continuous dialogue with users, adapting approaches in response to emerging concerns. Governance arrangements that mandate rigid adherence to predetermined specifications foreclose such adaptation, whilst flexible approaches enabling iterative refinement demonstrate superior outcomes.
Knowledge transfer and learning networks
Mechanisms for knowledge transfer significantly influence system-wide digital progress. The GDE programme explicitly incorporated such mechanisms through Fast Follower partnerships, pairing exemplar sites with less mature organisations positioned to benefit from their learning. Cresswell et al. (2019) conceptualise this approach as developing digital maturity through structured relationships rather than technology transfer alone, recognising that capabilities rather than systems determine transformation success.
Blueprint development represents another knowledge transfer mechanism, documenting successful implementations in forms transferable to other contexts. Cresswell, Sheikh and Williams (2021) examine how blueprints functioned within GDE, finding that effective knowledge transfer required more than document sharing. Successful knowledge transfer involved ongoing relationships between originating and receiving organisations, enabling contextual adaptation of general principles. Governance arrangements supporting such relationships—through funding, facilitation, and accountability for knowledge sharing—proved essential.
Learning networks more broadly contribute to sustained transformation. Krasuska et al. (2021) identify such networks as facilitating ongoing improvement, enabling organisations to share emerging challenges and solutions rather than repeatedly rediscovering known problems. Networks also provide professional development opportunities, exposing staff to alternative approaches and building relationships that support future collaboration. However, network effectiveness depends on governance arrangements that value and resource participation, rather than treating it as additional burden alongside operational responsibilities.
Governance models: from top-down to middle-out
The evolution of NHS digital governance reflects learning from past failures. The top-down model exemplified by NPfIT has given way to hybrid approaches attempting to balance national coherence with local flexibility. Cresswell et al. (2019) characterise successful governance as ‘middle-out’, with central bodies setting interoperability standards, safety requirements, and evaluation frameworks whilst trusts retain autonomy to choose implementation pathways and vendors within that envelope.
This model reflects broader thinking about governing complex adaptive systems. Purely centralised approaches fail because they cannot accommodate local variation and generate resistance from actors whose autonomy they constrain. Purely decentralised approaches fail because they produce fragmentation, incompatibility, and inequality. Middle-out approaches attempt to capture benefits of both, though successful implementation requires careful calibration.
Ricciardi et al. (2019) emphasise that such calibration must account for context specificity. Appropriate boundaries between national and local responsibility vary according to issue type, organisational maturity, and political environment. Governance arrangements should therefore incorporate mechanisms for boundary adjustment as circumstances change, rather than fixing responsibilities in ways that become progressively misaligned.
Discussion
Synthesising barriers to NHS digital transformation
The evidence synthesised in this review reveals a consistent pattern of factors contributing to NHS digital transformation failure. At the system level, governance arrangements oscillate problematically between over-centralised control and fragmented responsibility. NPfIT demonstrated the failures of top-down imposition, whilst subsequent policies created fragmentation that generated its own pathologies. Neither extreme supports successful transformation; both produce conditions where projects stall.
The framing of digital initiatives as IT deployments rather than service transformation emerges as a particularly consequential failure mode. This conceptualisation concentrates attention and resources on technology procurement and implementation whilst neglecting the organisational change necessary to realise benefits. Projects ‘succeed’ in technical terms—systems are deployed, contracts fulfilled—whilst failing to deliver improved care or efficiency. Governance arrangements that define success through technology deployment inadvertently incentivise this outcome, creating accountability structures misaligned with genuine transformation.
Funding structures reinforce these dynamics. Short-term, project-based funding creates pressure for visible deliverables within funding windows, disadvantaging deeper transformation requiring sustained investment. The emphasis on additionality in many funding schemes—requiring projects to demonstrate novelty rather than consolidating existing capabilities—fragments effort and prevents cumulative development. Governance arrangements treating digital transformation as a series of discrete projects rather than continuous organisational development generate these problematic incentives.
Leadership and workforce factors mediate how governance arrangements translate into local outcomes. Organisations with strong clinical digital leadership can navigate complex governance environments more effectively, securing resources, building professional engagement, and adapting initiatives to local contexts. Those lacking such leadership struggle to convert national policy into local action, regardless of policy intent. This dynamic partly explains persistent variation in digital maturity across NHS organisations despite ostensibly uniform policy environments.
Governance patterns predicting successful delivery
Despite these challenges, the evidence identifies governance patterns consistently associated with successful digital transformation. These patterns do not guarantee success—local factors and implementation quality remain important—but they create conditions under which success becomes more likely.
Protected funding with local match requirements emerges as a key enabler. Such arrangements signal organisational priority, generate internal accountability, and provide stability enabling sustained investment. The requirement for local contribution creates scrutiny and ownership that purely central funding lacks. However, match requirements must be calibrated to organisational capacity; excessive requirements exclude less-resourced organisations, potentially widening rather than narrowing digital divides.
Middle-out governance, balancing national standards with local autonomy, addresses limitations of both centralised and decentralised approaches. National bodies appropriately set interoperability requirements, safety standards, and evaluation frameworks—areas where inconsistency generates system-level problems. Local organisations appropriately choose implementation approaches, vendors, and sequencing—areas where contextual variation legitimately influences optimal choices. Successful governance clearly delineates these responsibilities, avoiding both micromanagement and abdication.
Embedded clinical digital leadership provides the capabilities necessary to translate governance arrangements into local action. Programmes like the NHS Digital Academy develop distributed leadership capacity across the system, creating change agents who understand both clinical requirements and digital possibilities. Governance arrangements should actively cultivate such leadership rather than assuming it emerges spontaneously.
Outcome-focused oversight emphasising learning represents perhaps the most significant departure from conventional governance. Traditional accountability mechanisms emphasise compliance with predetermined specifications, punishing deviation even when adaptation would improve outcomes. Learning-oriented governance recognises that digital transformation involves inherent uncertainty, requiring iterative refinement as understanding develops. Such governance emphasises care quality and service improvement rather than technology deployment, creating accountability for outcomes that matter whilst permitting flexibility in how those outcomes are achieved.
Learning networks operationalise this orientation, creating mechanisms through which organisations share knowledge and experience. GDE-Fast Follower relationships, blueprint development, and professional networks all contribute to system-wide capability development. Governance arrangements should resource and incentivise such activities, recognising their contribution to transformation success.
Implications for policy and practice
These findings carry significant implications for those responsible for NHS digital strategy. The analysis suggests that governance reform should prioritise several areas.
First, funding models require fundamental reconsideration. Moving from short-term, project-based funding towards protected, multi-year allocations would provide stability enabling sustained transformation. Incorporating local match requirements generates ownership and accountability, though requirements must accommodate varying organisational capacity.
Second, governance structures should explicitly adopt middle-out approaches. This requires clearly delineating national and local responsibilities, avoiding both the rigid centralisation of NPfIT and the fragmentation of subsequent periods. Recent structural reforms consolidating digital responsibilities within NHS England represent steps in this direction, though implementation will determine whether structural change produces governance improvement.
Third, investment in clinical digital leadership should be sustained and expanded. The NHS Digital Academy model demonstrates potential for developing distributed leadership capacity, but programme scale remains insufficient given NHS scope. Governance arrangements should create career pathways and incentives that attract and retain clinical informatics talent.
Fourth, accountability frameworks should reorient from compliance towards outcomes and learning. This represents perhaps the most challenging change, requiring cultural as well as structural adjustment. Conventional accountability mechanisms provide certainty and defensibility; learning-oriented approaches accept uncertainty and require trust. Building such trust requires demonstrated commitment to supporting organisations facing difficulties rather than punishing them.
Limitations and critical reflections
This analysis carries limitations warranting acknowledgement. The evidence base, whilst substantial, derives predominantly from evaluations of specific programmes and qualitative studies of implementation challenges. Longitudinal quantitative evidence linking governance arrangements to patient outcomes remains limited, constraining claims about which arrangements definitively ‘work’.
Publication bias may shape the evidence base. High-profile failures like NPfIT receive extensive scholarly attention, whilst smaller-scale successes may pass unexamined. This dynamic potentially overweights negative cases, though this concern is partially mitigated by evaluations of programmes like GDE that document successful elements.
The analysis also reflects predominantly English experience. Whilst drawing on European perspectives, applicability to other health systems requires careful consideration of contextual differences. The NHS’s distinctive characteristics—its scale, public funding, and political salience—shape governance dynamics in ways that may not generalise to other contexts.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined why NHS digital transformation projects stall and identified governance patterns that predict successful delivery. The analysis achieves its stated objectives through systematic literature synthesis, offering insights applicable to policy and practice.
Regarding the first objective, system-level governance failures emerge clearly from the evidence. Over-centralised control, exemplified by NPfIT, generates local resistance, undermines ownership, and produces solutions misaligned with user needs. Fragmented institutional responsibilities create accountability gaps, duplicated effort, and unclear strategic direction. Short-term, thinly-spread funding undermines sustainability and prevents cumulative capability development. These factors interact, creating governance environments hostile to successful digital transformation.
The second objective, examining organisational and project-level barriers, reveals complementary findings. Conceptualising digital initiatives as IT deployments rather than service transformation leads to underinvestment in change management and benefits realisation. Weak digital leadership and limited workforce engagement impede adoption even when technical implementation succeeds. Skills gaps, inadequate training, and powerless digital champions perpetuate these challenges.
For the third objective, governance patterns associated with success demonstrate consistent characteristics. Protected funding with local match requirements creates priority and sustainability. Middle-out governance balances national coherence with local flexibility. Embedded clinical digital leadership provides capabilities necessary for effective implementation. Outcome-focused oversight emphasising learning enables adaptive transformation responding to emerging understanding.
The fourth objective, synthesising findings into a practical framework, is achieved through articulating these patterns as actionable guidance. Policymakers should reform funding models, clarify governance responsibilities, invest in leadership development, and reorient accountability towards outcomes and learning. Trust leaders should build clinical digital leadership capacity, engage workforce in transformation design, and participate actively in learning networks.
The fifth objective, identifying future research directions, points towards several priorities. Longitudinal studies tracking governance interventions’ effects on patient outcomes would strengthen the evidence base. Comparative research examining digital governance across health systems would test generalisability of findings derived predominantly from English experience. Implementation research examining how governance reforms translate into changed practice would address gaps between policy intent and organisational reality.
The significance of these findings extends beyond NHS digital transformation specifically. Health systems internationally face similar challenges, and the patterns identified here offer transferable insights. Moreover, the analysis contributes to broader understanding of how large, complex public institutions manage technological change—a challenge extending well beyond healthcare.
Ultimately, successful NHS digital transformation requires reconceptualising both what is being governed and how governance operates. Digital transformation is not technology deployment but organisational change enabled by technology. Governing such change requires arrangements that prioritise learning over compliance, outcomes over outputs, and adaptation over adherence. Achieving this reorientation represents the fundamental governance challenge confronting NHS digital strategy.
References
Acharya, A., Black, R., Smithies, A. and Darzi, A., 2022. Evaluating the impact of a digital leadership programme on national digital priorities: a mixed methods study. *BMJ Open*, 12(4), e056369. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056369
Areal, A. and Sheppy, B., 2021. A Crisis of Governance – Or an Opportunity? *Health Services Insights*, 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329211033845
Asthana, S., Jones, R. and Sheaff, R., 2019. Why does the NHS struggle to adopt eHealth innovations? A review of macro, meso and micro factors. *BMC Health Services Research*, 19, 984. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4790-x
Benjamin, K. and Potts, H., 2018. Digital transformation in government: Lessons for digital health? *Digital Health*, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618759168
Bidmead, E. and McShane, C., 2021. Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Digital Solutions. *Health*, 13(11), pp. 1448-1469. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2021.1311097
Cresswell, K., Anderson, S., Elizondo, A. and Williams, R., 2024. Opportunities and challenges of promoting integrated care through digitalisation – learning lessons from large-scale national programmes in England. *Health Policy and Technology*, 13(1), 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100838
Cresswell, K., Sheikh, A., Krasuska, M., Heeney, C., Franklin, B., Lane, W., Mozaffar, H., Mason, K., Eason, S., Hinder, S., Potts, H. and Williams, R., 2019. Reconceptualising the digital maturity of health systems. *The Lancet Digital Health*, 1(5), pp. e200-e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30083-4
Cresswell, K., Sheikh, A. and Williams, R., 2021. Accelerating health information technology capabilities across England’s National Health Service. *The Lancet Digital Health*, 3(9), pp. e546-e548. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00145-x
Cresswell, K., Williams, R. and Sheikh, A., 2020. Bridging the growing digital divide between NHS England’s hospitals. *Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine*, 114(3), pp. 111-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820974998
Cripps, M. and Scarbrough, H., 2022. Making Digital Health “Solutions” Sustainable in Healthcare Systems: A Practitioner Perspective. *Frontiers in Digital Health*, 4, 727421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.727421
Dendere, R., Janda, M. and Sullivan, C., 2021. Are we doing it right? We need to evaluate the current approaches for implementation of digital health systems. *Australian Health Review*, 46(1), pp. 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1071/ah20289
Duncan, R., Eden, R., Woods, L., Wong, I. and Sullivan, C., 2022. Synthesizing Dimensions of Digital Maturity in Hospitals: Systematic Review. *Journal of Medical Internet Research*, 24(3), e32994. https://doi.org/10.2196/32994
Justinia, T., 2017. The UK’s National Programme for IT: Why was it dismantled? *Health Services Management Research*, 30(1), pp. 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484816662492
Krasuska, M., Williams, R., Sheikh, A., Franklin, B., Hinder, S., TheNguyen, H., Lane, W., Mozaffar, H., Mason, K., Eason, S., Potts, H. and Cresswell, K., 2021. Driving digital health transformation in hospitals: a formative qualitative evaluation of the English Global Digital Exemplar programme. *BMJ Health & Care Informatics*, 28(1), e100429. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100429
Ricciardi, W., Barros, P., Bourek, A., Brouwer, W., Kelsey, T. and Lehtonen, L., 2019. How to govern the digital transformation of health services. *European Journal of Public Health*, 29(Supplement 3), pp. 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz165
Zaman, T., Viragos, A. and Zygiaris, S., 2020. One Frame at a Time: The Dynamics of a Change Project, End-Users and Digitally Transformed NHS. *Academy of Management Proceedings*, 2020(1), 19673. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2020.19673abstract
