{"title":"Pragmatic Approaches to Interoperability – Surmounting Barriers to Healthcare Data and Information Across Organizations and Political Boundaries","authors":"Bharath Perugu, MBA, Varun Wadhwa, BS, Jin Kim, ME, Jenny Cai, BS (Candidate), Audrey Shin, BS (Candidate), Amar Gupta, MBA, PhD","doi":"10.30953/thmt.v8.421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective\nThis paper provides a review of the landscape of interoperability efforts in healthcare from 2010 to 2023, in the US and abroad. Interoperability, in the context of this paper, is “the ability to share information across time and space from multiple devices, sources, and organizations”, as defined by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). This review is followed by recommendations for future work toward improving the standardization of heterogeneous data in the healthcare setting.\n \nMethodology and Results\nA literature review was conducted on established interoperability standards and systems in healthcare, based on information obtained from journal publications, government, academy reports, published materials, and publicly available websites. The review emphasizes four interoperability parameters: device/equipment interoperability, compatibility issues, involved organizations, and migration and conversion issues. It evaluates adoption levels for each standard, evaluating factors supporting and/or limiting systemic adoption. Estimations on the number of users – both medical professionals and patients – for each system were made in instances where verifiable data were available. \n \nExamples of specific interoperability efforts and an evaluation of their feasibility were conducted at three levels of healthcare interoperability, as defined by the National Academy of Medicine: Inter-facility (macro-tier) interoperability, Intra-facility (meso-tier) interoperability, and Point-of-care (micro-tier) interoperability.\n \nConclusions\nDespite many parallel ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of healthcare information, in the mobile devices, IoT, and EHR sectors, there is still more space for improvement. The recent development of the TEFCA framework has greatly reduced the friction of data exchange in many healthcare contexts. In addition, funding architectures for mediating data between separate healthcare organizations, or middleware architectures, may also be an effective strategy for consolidating healthcare data and improving information exchange.","PeriodicalId":320236,"journal":{"name":"Telehealth and Medicine Today","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telehealth and Medicine Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30953/thmt.v8.421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
This paper provides a review of the landscape of interoperability efforts in healthcare from 2010 to 2023, in the US and abroad. Interoperability, in the context of this paper, is “the ability to share information across time and space from multiple devices, sources, and organizations”, as defined by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). This review is followed by recommendations for future work toward improving the standardization of heterogeneous data in the healthcare setting.
Methodology and Results
A literature review was conducted on established interoperability standards and systems in healthcare, based on information obtained from journal publications, government, academy reports, published materials, and publicly available websites. The review emphasizes four interoperability parameters: device/equipment interoperability, compatibility issues, involved organizations, and migration and conversion issues. It evaluates adoption levels for each standard, evaluating factors supporting and/or limiting systemic adoption. Estimations on the number of users – both medical professionals and patients – for each system were made in instances where verifiable data were available.
Examples of specific interoperability efforts and an evaluation of their feasibility were conducted at three levels of healthcare interoperability, as defined by the National Academy of Medicine: Inter-facility (macro-tier) interoperability, Intra-facility (meso-tier) interoperability, and Point-of-care (micro-tier) interoperability.
Conclusions
Despite many parallel ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of healthcare information, in the mobile devices, IoT, and EHR sectors, there is still more space for improvement. The recent development of the TEFCA framework has greatly reduced the friction of data exchange in many healthcare contexts. In addition, funding architectures for mediating data between separate healthcare organizations, or middleware architectures, may also be an effective strategy for consolidating healthcare data and improving information exchange.