Bharath Perugu, MBA, Varun Wadhwa, BS, Jin Kim, ME, Jenny Cai, BS (Candidate), Audrey Shin, BS (Candidate), Amar Gupta, MBA/PhD
{"title":"Surmounting Barriers to Healthcare Data and Information: International Case Studies","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.v8.428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: In this article, the authors review the progress in healthcare interoperability from 2010 to 2023 from an international perspective. Countries covered here include the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Estonia, and the Commonwealth of Australia. 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 Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This is followed by recommendations for future work toward improving the standardization of heterogeneous data in the healthcare setting.\nMethodology: 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. 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: 1) inter-facility (macro-tier) interoperability, 2) intra-facility (meso-tier) interoperability, and 3) Point-of-Care (micro-tier) interoperability. The authors assessed the adoption levels of each standard by looking at factors that support or limit its systemic adoption. Estimations on the number of users—medical professionals and patients—for each system were made in instances where verifiable data are available.\nResults: Presented here is an evaluation of four interoperability parameters: 1) device/equipment interoperability, 2) compatibility issues, 3) involved organizations, and 4) migration and conversion issues.\nConclusions: Despite many parallel ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of healthcare information in the mobile devices, Internet of Things (IoT), and electronic health records (HER) sectors, there remains space for improvement. The recent development of the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) framework has significantly 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":"572 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.v8.428","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: In this article, the authors review the progress in healthcare interoperability from 2010 to 2023 from an international perspective. Countries covered here include the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Estonia, and the Commonwealth of Australia. 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 Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This is followed by recommendations for future work toward improving the standardization of heterogeneous data in the healthcare setting.
Methodology: 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. 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: 1) inter-facility (macro-tier) interoperability, 2) intra-facility (meso-tier) interoperability, and 3) Point-of-Care (micro-tier) interoperability. The authors assessed the adoption levels of each standard by looking at factors that support or limit its systemic adoption. Estimations on the number of users—medical professionals and patients—for each system were made in instances where verifiable data are available.
Results: Presented here is an evaluation of four interoperability parameters: 1) device/equipment interoperability, 2) compatibility issues, 3) involved organizations, and 4) migration and conversion issues.
Conclusions: Despite many parallel ongoing efforts to improve the standardization of healthcare information in the mobile devices, Internet of Things (IoT), and electronic health records (HER) sectors, there remains space for improvement. The recent development of the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) framework has significantly 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.
目的:本文从国际视角回顾了2010 - 2023年医疗互操作性的进展。这里涵盖的国家包括中华民国(台湾)、克罗地亚共和国、爱沙尼亚共和国和澳大利亚联邦。互操作性,在本文的上下文中,是“从多个设备、来源和组织跨时间和空间共享信息的能力”,正如电气和电子工程师协会(IEEE)所定义的那样。接下来是对未来工作的建议,以改善医疗保健环境中异构数据的标准化。方法:根据从期刊出版物、政府、学术报告、出版材料和公开网站获得的信息,对医疗保健领域已建立的互操作性标准和系统进行了文献综述。根据美国国家医学院(National Academy of Medicine)的定义,在医疗保健互操作性的三个级别上进行了具体互操作性工作示例及其可行性评估:1)设施间(宏观层)互操作性,2)设施内(中观层)互操作性,以及3)医疗点(微观层)互操作性。作者通过观察支持或限制其系统采用的因素来评估每个标准的采用水平。在有可核实数据的情况下,对每个系统的用户(医务专业人员和病人)人数进行了估计。结果:这里给出了四个互操作性参数的评估:1)设备/设备互操作性,2)兼容性问题,3)涉及的组织,以及4)迁移和转换问题。结论:尽管在移动设备、物联网(IoT)和电子健康记录(HER)领域有许多正在进行的改进医疗信息标准化的并行努力,但仍有改进的空间。最近开发的可信交换框架和共同协议(TEFCA)框架大大减少了许多医疗保健环境中数据交换的摩擦。此外,为独立医疗保健组织之间的数据中介提供资金的体系结构或中间件体系结构也可能是整合医疗保健数据和改进信息交换的有效策略。