The distinction matters because a framework can define what professionals should know and be able to do without ensuring that they can perform those tasks in a real clinical environment. Capability describes the required knowledge, skills and behaviours. Competence concerns whether an individual has attained those capabilities at an appropriate standard, while performance is their demonstrated application in practice. Workforce readiness goes further: it includes the judgement, confidence, ethical reasoning and adaptability needed to use those capabilities in complex settings that change as technologies, regulations and patient needs evolve. The perspective also uses Miller’s pyramid as an interpretive lens, with readiness reflected in the ability to translate knowledge and competence into effective performance in authentic practice settings.

Australia’s coordinated policy work is described as a significant achievement. The National Digital Health Workforce and Education Roadmap established the case for a nationally consistent approach, while the National Nursing and Midwifery Digital Health Capability Framework, the Digital Health in Medicine Capability Framework and the Digital Health Capability Framework for Allied Health Professionals translated the broader policy direction into professional contexts. The cross-disciplinary Australian Digital Health Capability Framework then articulated shared expectations across the health and care workforce, including digital professionalism, leadership and advocacy, and the quality of data and information. Although the frameworks address different professional settings, the authors identify substantial common ground across digital professionalism, information and data literacy, technology-enabled care, human-centred practice and safe use of digital technologies.

These initiatives have helped move digital health beyond a narrow measure of technical proficiency. Their shared language covers not only the operation of digital systems, but also communication, human-centred care, collaboration, safe technology use and responsible handling of information. Australia has also begun building implementation support, notably through the Digital Health Train-the-Trainer Toolkit, developed by the Australian Digital Health Agency with the Australian Council of Senior Academic Leaders in Digital Health. It provides resources for university educators embedding eight digital health learning outcomes in pre-registration health degrees, recognising that educators themselves need support if curricula are to change. The initiative shifts attention from further refining capability statements toward the practical work of curriculum integration, educator preparation and implementation support.

The perspective does not present framework development as a completed solution. Many competency requirements have yet to be systematically embedded in health professional curricula, and evidence for sustained improvements in organisational and workforce outcomes remains limited. Reviews have found variation in the design of digital readiness interventions, their implementation and the measures used to assess success. Educational programs can strengthen digital competence and confidence, but the authors say that the evidence for long-term effects remains less developed. Their proposed response is not to discard capability frameworks, which will need to evolve with technology and regulation, but to connect existing expectations to training, assessment, simulation, workplace learning and continuing professional development. The success of the national agenda would then be judged by what becomes observable in education and practice rather than by the number of frameworks produced.

Authentic practice learning is central to that proposed transition. Students and health professionals must encounter situations in which they must judge whether information is reliable, protect privacy, navigate ethical dilemmas, support consumers with different levels of digital literacy and respond when a technology or process fails. A readiness indicator under the framework’s data and information quality domain, for example, would be the ability to critically evaluate data and AI-generated outputs before using them in clinical decisions. In technology domains, readiness would be demonstrated by recognising failures, seeking support and activating safe alternatives to maintain continuity and care. Under digital professionalism, the proposed indicator is the application of professional judgement when technologies create inequities, uncertainty or ethical dilemmas involving access, privacy, security, communication and AI-related issues. These are illustrative transformations of framework statements, not outcomes measured in the perspective.

Artificial intelligence makes this distinction increasingly consequential. The source argues that workforce preparation must extend beyond conventional technical competence to include assessment of AI-generated content, awareness of automation bias and hallucinated outputs, and recognition of the limitations of algorithmic recommendations. These are not simply additional software skills: they require professional judgement, data stewardship, privacy awareness, accountability, bias awareness and the ability to question an apparently authoritative output. The emerging position presented in the paper is that AI should augment rather than replace professional judgement, and that responsible innovation requires ethical governance, human-centred design and workforce leadership. Readiness therefore means being prepared for digitally mediated decision-making, not merely having access to a tool or knowing how to operate it.

Readiness also depends on the organisations in which professionals work. Leadership support, reliable digital infrastructure, interoperability, governance, workflow integration, technical assistance, workplace culture and protected learning opportunities all affect whether a person can translate training into everyday practice. The perspective therefore treats readiness as both an individual attribute and a product of a supportive organisational environment. Equity is an equally important concern because infrastructure, access to professional development and previous experience with digital tools may differ across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote settings, professional groups and career stages. Exposure to digital technology or access to a course consequently cannot be treated as evidence of readiness by itself. Planning must account for a person’s goals, motivations, literacy, aptitude and context as well as their formal access to training.

The proposed next phase calls for sustained, coordinated implementation and evaluation across universities, accreditation bodies, health services, professional organisations, policymakers and researchers. Questions include whether digital capabilities are consistently taught and validly assessed, whether educators are equipped to support learning, whether simulation and workplace placements provide authentic experience, and whether graduates and practising clinicians continue to demonstrate safe, responsible and adaptive digital practice over time. The Australian Council of Senior Academic Leaders in Digital Health supports a broader systems approach involving education, workforce development and digital health research, while DHWorx, an Australian and New Zealand digital health workforce research consortium, provides a mechanism for collaborative scholarship about capability, preparedness and emerging educational needs. Their value will depend on evidence showing that implementation is sustained rather than remaining aspirational.

The perspective is primarily Australian and draws on selected national initiatives and literature rather than a systematic review of international evidence. It also identifies substantial limitations in the empirical record: long-term effects of digital capability frameworks on the workforce remain limited, and readiness requirements will differ among professions, career stages, organisations and healthcare settings. Rapid technological change further means frameworks and readiness measures will need regular revision. The central message is nevertheless clear: Australia has made major progress in defining digitally capable practice, but producing a ready workforce now depends on measured implementation, supported learning, organisational conditions and continuous evaluation rather than the publication of more capability documents alone. The proposed transition is therefore from defining what digitally capable practice should look like to testing whether health professionals can enact it safely, responsibly and adaptably as healthcare changes.

Subject of Research: Australian digital health workforce capability and readiness

Article Title: Beyond capability frameworks: Australia’s next challenge in preparing the digital health workforce

Article References: Arabi, S., & Butler-Henderson, K. (2026). Beyond capability frameworks: Australia’s next challenge in preparing the digital health workforce. Frontiers in Health Services, 6, Article 1968499. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2026.1968499

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2026.1968499

Keywords: digital health, workforce readiness, capability frameworks, health education, artificial intelligence, digital literacy, organisational readiness, professional development, health policy, Beyond, capability, frameworks