Health and Human Services HL7 FHIR Code-a-thon

This upcoming code-a-thon was news to me, and in a way it’s quite exciting because of the context. HL7 International has run FHIR connectathons at each of its working group meetings since 2011, and these have brought a lot of maturity to the standard, and moved ownership of the draft standard away from the modelling community to the implementer community where it really belongs; Project Argonaut has brought more urgency, using Meaningful Use as a vehicle, and people like Dr. John Halamka and Josh Mandel have been very vocal about its importance.

But this is HHS, which has put a lot of support behind the NIEM Health Domain. To be fair, there could be massive crossover potential between NIEM and HL7, since both are more or less resource-based, using what NIEM calls Exchange Packages, and FHIR calls Bundles. In the long view, it’s not much of a stretch for a health information package (message or document) to contain information formatted as both kinds of resources, bundled as JSON, backed by XSD or CAM.

For anyone interested in Integrated Case Management and crossover potential between Justice and Health, this is definitely exciting. What's probably most important here, though, is the message about SMART on FHIR apps operating with an Argonaut API. This is complete blue sky at this point, but when you look at the number of EHR vendors involved with Argonaut (MEDITECH, Cerner, McKesson, and Epic, to name a few), this could become a reality very quickly.

http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/Feds-Plan-FHIR-Code-A-Thon-to-Advance-API-Development-51791-1.html

Using AngularJS with HL7 FHIR Questionnaire

This  is a very simple example using Angular templating (no directives) with an HL7 FHIR Questionnaire resource, which I am using directly from one of the public FHIR servers (Grahame's to be precise). In addition to the machine-readable content for question groups and answers, I am creating a rudimentary service to manage coded concepts (ie value sets), and I am displaying the human-readable portion of the resource (the HTML text div) as well. This is really just a beginning, and one thing I would like to build into this demonstration is the ability to use embedded SVG for the human-readable portion, as it seems to me that existing PDF questionnaires could be converted to SVG and thus embedded. Makes for a large resource file, but this would be a great way to retain the look and feel of existing documents, once an easing library is used to zoom in on the appropriate area of the SVG. I'm calling this demonstration "QuestionCare" because I think it would also be useful to be able to use Careplan within this context.

We begin with a root HTML that sets up my Single Page Application, and a reference to my Rhizome library, which contains a number of useful client-side services:

<body id="content" style="display: none;" ng-app="questioncare">
      <h3 ng-controller="ErrorController" ng-bind="errorText" ng-show="showError"></h3>
      <div id="request" ng-controller="RequestController">
        <button id="view-questionnaire" ng-click= "viewQuestionnaire()">View Questionnaire</button>
      </div>
      <ng-include src="res/templates/Questionnaire.html"> </ng-include>

This corresponds to a single line in the javascript initialization:

var questioncare = angular.module('questioncare', ['rhizome', 'ngSanitize']);

 We'll see how the ngSanitize module is required in order to handle rendering the human-readable HTML div from the Questionnaire resource as HTML, instead of text, using ng-bind-html. In any case, we are setting up a controller to handle a request, and then we are including a template to handle the response. The rest, as we shall see is handled through controller code and client-side services, but let's take a quick look at the included template for Questionnaire:

<div id="questionnaireResponse" ng-controller="QuestionnaireController" ng-show="showQuestionnaire">
  <div ng-bind-html="humanReadable"></div>     <hr/>
  <div ng-bind="questionnaire.name.text"></div>
  <div ng-bind="group.header"></div>
  <hr/>
  <ol id="questions">
    <li ng-repeat="question in group.question">
      <div ng-bind="question.text"></div>
      <ol id="options">
        <li ng-repeat="option in getOptions(question.options.reference)">                    [<span ng-bind="option.code"></span>]:
      <span ng-bind="option.display"></span>
        </li>
      </ol>
    </li>
  </ol>
</div>

 That takes care of the HTML. The request controller invokes an adapter (this is running on IBM Worklight), and then sends the response to the questionnaire controller using $rootScope.broadcast, but first it calls a client-side service which I have made responsible for managing codes; in this case, the value sets for the different options you can pick when you answer the questionnaire.

questioncare.controller( 'RequestController',
  function($scope, $http, $rootScope, errorService, codeService) {

    $scope.viewQuestionnaire = function() {
           
      var invocationData = {
        adapter: 'FHIR',
        procedure: 'getQuestionnaire',
        parameters: []
      };
           
      WL.Client.invokeProcedure(invocationData, {
        onSuccess : function(result) {
          if (200 == result.status) {
            var ir = result.invocationResult;
            if (true == ir.isSuccessful) {
              $scope.$apply(function () {
                var questRes = ir.content;
      codeService.loadCodedConcepts(questRes.contained);          $rootScope.$broadcast('qr', questRes);
              });
            } else {
      errorService.worklightError('Bad Request');
            };
          } else {
      errorService.worklightError('Http Failure ' + result.status);
        };
      },
      onFailure : errorService.worklightError
    });
  }
});

The codeService itself is quite simple, although, since value sets could potentially come from a variety of places, this service could become a lot more complicated. In this case, I am just scraping contained value sets from the Questionnaire resource itself:

rhizome.factory('codeService', function($rootScope, errorService) {
  var codeService = {};
  codeService.codedConcept = Object;
   
  codeService.loadCodedConcepts = function(contained) {
    for (c in contained) {
      codeService.codedConcept[contained[c].id] = contained[c].define.concept;
    }
  };
   
  codeService.getCodedConcept = function(opt, remHash) {
    if (remHash) {
      opt = opt.substr(1);
    }
    return(codeService.codedConcept[opt]);          
  };
   
  return codeService;
});    

Angular services can be difficult to grasp at first, but they are one of the more important features of the framework, since they allow you to make your client-side more portable and standardized; however, this particular service is little more than a stub at this point. It deals with a hash sign which is probably included with the value set id, which is useful. Once the coded concepts have been scraped out of the Questionnaire, the document is displayed using the included template and a response controller.

questioncare.controller( 'QuestionnaireController',
  function($scope, errorService, codeService) {
   
    $scope.showQuestionnaire = false;
   
    $scope.$on('qr', function (event, arg) {
      $scope.questionnaire = arg;
      $scope.group = $scope.questionnaire.group;
      $scope.humanReadable = $scope.questionnaire.text.div;
      $scope.showQuestionnaire = true;
    });
          
    $scope.getOptions = function(opt) {
      return codeService.getCodedConcept(opt, true);
    };

});

Again, there is nothing too complicated here. Notice how the humanReadable questionnaire text div gets bound into an element that allows HTML to be rendered. Also, a second function is used to get and then display the options because these need to be repeated, as you can see in the Questionnaire.html. In addition, the entire questionnaire template is hidden until it is populated.

Next steps here will be to work with nested questionnaires, where selected options will traverse through a hierarchy of question groups. At this point, it may be useful to use Angular custom directives, although I am also trying to be careful about anything that will be subject to change with Angular 2.0, such as controllers.

More and more as I work with Angular, Worklight and HL7 FHIR, it strikes me that what is important here is building a library of standard services and templates on the client side, and then simply binding into it. Once DSTU2 is complete for FHIR it will become less of a moving target, but resources like Questionnaire, which has been the subject of several connect-a-thons now, seem especially stable.

Some Canadian Context for HL7 FHIR

I work in Healthcare Messaging in Canada; specifically, I work in messaging in British Columbia, where we work primarily with Point of Service applications and Clinical Information Systems that generate and consume messages in the HL7 v2 pipe and caret notation, with a foundation of registries and repositories that use a version of HL7 v3 Messaging XML. More or less, this follows Canada Health Infoway's iEHR blueprint; however, following Infoway's original blueprint, we would have HL7 v3 at the Point of Service as well as the foundation.

HL7 v2 is still used extensively in other Canadian jurisdictions. Some use v2 almost exclusively. In Canada, we have a mix of v2, v3, with some CDA. The United States, on the other hand, never embraced v3, creating a desperate need for a better messaging layer. In this case, FHIR will accomplish things in the U.S. that v3 could not, and that leaves Canada in a challenging position - continuing on with further investment in HL7 v3 makes little sense. Like CDA before it, FHIR can be used to augment these projects; there are enough similarities between FHIR XML and v3 Messaging to make this plausible.

Ongoing CDA projects in Canada are bound to continue as such, which will be worth paying attention to as CDA projects in the States start shifting to HL7 FHIR as an implementation standard. The message from Infoway recently here is to use the appropriate standard for the work at hand, and I expect this message to percolate on both sides of the border; but what does this really imply? How do you decide? For new business cases which would previously have required a document standard like CDA, HL7 FHIR is going to be compelling, as well as low risk, local, and greenfield projects.

Worth noting is the four ways that FHIR can be used. As previously discussed, FHIR supports both Messaging and Document use cases; but, perhaps more importantly, FHIR also supports both REST and Service use cases. In addition, FHIR is in many ways custom built for the security and transport requirements of mobile use cases, and contains resource definitions that will enable social use cases like circle of care and information provenance. For existing health information systems and applications, as well as new, FHIR creates new ways to expose, access, and share information; providing not only tools, but also challenges.

Yosemite Project and other Chimera

In Greek mythology, the chimera  was a monstrous fire-breathing hybrid nightmare composed of the parts of more than one animal, a lion with the head of a goat rising out of its back, and a tail with a snake's head; a nasty piece of business, eventually dispatched by Bellerophon with some assistance from Pegasus.


Chimera was also the subject of a presentation by Jeni Tennison, OBE, of the Open Data Institute and W3C TAG, at XMLPrague 2012, entitled "Collisions, Chimera and Consonance in Web Content." In this presentation, she introduces a compelling argument that suggests that currently, in the web, we are dealing with four different formats: HTML, XML, JSON, and RDF.

In many ways, these formats complement one another. Sometimes, they clash, creating impedance and dissonance, and sometimes they merge, forming weird and wonderful hybrids. Tennison's presentation is really quite remarkable, and well worth watching as each of these formats evolves.

As I have previously mentioned, another set of presentations, from Dataversity and SemanticWeb.com, are also worth watching and paying attention to. These deal with the Yosemite Project, ongoing work which intends to position RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language. This work is important in part because it directly addresses how to go about migrating and transforming between formats, once you can establish a common representation using RDF. In many ways, this is a mythical undertaking, but also very promising.

For instance, with the work underway with Project Argonaut and HL7 FHIR, you are looking at a standard for healthcare that comes in two flavours, XML and JSON; however, like its predecessor HL7 CDA, FHIR relies on a human-readable portion, which in this case means HTML5. Add to that the work underway with Yosemite - go watch the presentations! Now you have an ecosystem that supports appropriate use of HTML, XML, JSON, and RDF - the subject of  Dr. Tennison's XMLPrague presentation - now in the context of healthcare. This is really what John Halamka has referred to as the "HTTP and HTML for healthcare".

If you broaden your horizons just a little, you will see some of the work which is also being carried out by Health & Human Services and the NIEM Health Domain, as a counterpart to the work of HL7 International. NIEM is primarily an XML-based standard, but in the last couple years, the underlying tooling there is expanding into UML-, JSON-, and HTML-based representations. With the support of some underlying ontology work, perhaps in concert with Yosemite, NIEM too could be used to create linked health data. These are all very exciting, very important things that are happening very very quickly, and it is a great time to get involved with some of these projects and initiatives.

Project Yosemite, SMART on FHIR, and the Argonauts

The Argonaut Project is a collaboration between Health industry vendors like McKesson, Epic, Meditech and so forth, along with the Mayo Clinic and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, to provide the necessary resources to complete the work of the upcoming HL7 FHIR DSTU (Draft Standard for Trial Use). As Grahame Grieve elaborates on OpenHealthNews, Argonaut is aimed at three particular pieces of work:

1. Security
2. CCDA to FHIR Mapping
3. FHIR Implementation Testing

This work is intended for completion by May 2015. As described, the Security piece initially involves SMART on FHIR®, a platform developed by Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital, implementing open standards for healthcare data, authorization, and UI integration. For authorization, SMART uses OAuth2, a profile for which will most likely become built in to the FHIR standard.

Josh Mandel, the lead architect behind SMART on FHIR® also spoke recently as part of a series on  of five presentations on Project Yosemite, held by SemanticWeb.org and DataVersity. Project Yosemite began a year or so ago with the Yosemite Manifesto, which establishes RDF (the Resource Description Framework that underlies the Semantic Web and Linked Data) as the best candidate for a universal healthcare exchange language. Project Yosemite follows two paths, "Standards" and "Translation", based on the premise that standards adoption is of primary importance, but that there will always be a need to translate between standards, and even between versions of the same standard.

The idea here is that once you build ontological mappings of various healthcare standards into RDF representations, then Semantic mapping tools like SPINMap and TopQuadrant's TopBraid can be used to construct robust migration/translation layers. This is the first step in producing a distributed network of Linked Health providers, similar to the work currently taking place with Linked Data. At this point, the presentation recordings from DataVersity are not yet all available, but they are definitely worth watching.

HL7 FHIR provides a potential successor to several HL7 standards currently in use internationally. Migration is a critical success factor here, and Project Yosemite presents a different way to approach migration. Perhaps coincidentally, RDF and FHIR are both resource-based approaches; RSS is a syndication format that emerged from work with RDF, and FHIR uses a similar syndication format, Atom, to aggregate and compose health resources, like Patient and Observation.

Project Yosemite benfits FHIR and Project Argonaut, Argonaut accelerates the first phase of ONC Data Access Framework (DAF) project. Project Yosemite is involved with ICD-11. This seems like lot of convergence, and the next 6 months will really show how much. It's a great time to get involved.

HL7 FHIR and Argonaut in Canada

I am Canadian, so for me, Argonauts play football, and by football, I don't mean soccer. The Argonaut Project is also the subject of a recent announcement at last week's HL7 Policy Conference in Washington, in response to the latest JASON Report. There appears to be a mythological theme emerging in Health IT, and I'm looking forward to an opportunity at some point to scream "release the KRAKEN!!!" or something similar. But not yet.

The Argonaut Project has the backing of a number of American EHR vendors, including Epic, Cerner, Meditech, McKesson, athenahealth, with additional support from Partners HealthCare, Intermountain Healthcare, Beth Israel Deaconess, and Mayo Clinic. The project extends involvement these organizations already have with HL7 International, and promises to deliver implementation guides related to an emerging HL7 standard, HL7 FHIR, by May timeframe 2015.

• athenahealth
• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
• Cerner
• Epic
• Intermountain Healthcare
• Mayo Clinic
• MEDITECH
• McKesson
• Partners HealthCare System
• SMART at the Boston Children’s Hospital Informatics Program 
• The Advisory Board Company

This is a diverse group of collaborators and an aggressive timeline, but what does this mean for Health IT projects here in Canada?

Migration and Transformation

Whereas HL7 v2 uses "pipe and caret" notation, and HL7 v3 supports any wire format as long as it is XML, HL7 FHIR comes in two flavours, XML and JSON (which makes it particularly useful for mobile use cases). By design, FHIR is intended to provide a migration path for v2, v3, and CDA. This really reminds me of the intentions behind the development of XML in particular, as a sort of lingua franca for the web, and in that sense, XML has been very successful. As mentioned, for mobile and social use cases, a JSON-based standard for health information will be hugely beneficial as well.

In Canada, we have built a foundation of healthcare registries and repositories based on HL7 v3 Messaging, although the applications that are in place in Hospitals and other Health Information sources typically come from U.S. vendors including many of those mentioned above, which requires a transformation layer from v2 to v3 and back again. I'd like to imagine a world where both the foundation and the Hospital information systems can communicate using the same standard, or through an integration layer that uses a common standard. Argonaut is at the very least a step in that direction.

Documents and Messages

Here in Canada, we have built our information access layer for health around Messaging; in the U.S., Document-centric health prevails. Canadian projects may involve the HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), but these are more limited in scope than the foundational work which has been carried out involving HL7 v3 Messaging. Recent guidance from Canada Health Infoway is to use the most appropriate standard for the job at hand. In many cases, that will be v3 Messaging, simply because the work is already underway.

FHIR is quite clever in that it is based around Healthcare resources (Patients, Providers, Observations and so forth), a more granular approach than either CDA or v3 Messaging, and this is how FHIR supports both Message- and Document-based flow of information. This is crucial if your requirements are a hybrid, or if you are currently supporting one approach, but are aware that you will need to support the other. Simply put, FHIR dispels the holy war between Health Messaging and Health Documents. ("Unleash the KRAKEN!!!")

Example: Questionnaires

It goes something like this: you are tasked with creating a set of health questionnaires for a Canadian healthcare organization. Most likely, you will create PDF documents, but you might consider using CDA for a moment, because CDA provides an architecture for Clinical Documents. But that moment would pass. Now, consider this: the FHIR community has already held several connectathons involving questionnaires, and one of its members, David Hay, has already written a series of articles about extending the Questionnaire resource based on his experience.

So that's useful.

In particular, IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise) is currently developing multiple profiles using FHIR as a basis for mobile access - (MHD, PDQm, RESTful PIX). With Canada Health Infoway as the home of IHE in Canada, I am hoping that we can find uses for these profiles here as well. These profiles are under development, but if the consortium behind the Argonaut Project really wants to make a difference, they can throw their support behind IHE as well.

References

HL7 International Press Release
HealthLeaders Media - Argonaut Project is a Sprint toward EHR Interoperability
OnHealthCareTechnology - JASON: The Great American Experiment
HealthcareITNews - Epic, Cerner, others join HL7 project
John Halamka - Life as a Healthcare CIO - Kindling FHIR

Back to Basics: Rhizome

I started the Rhizome reference implementation a year ago as a way of demonstrating how a combination of client-side services, constructed using Angular and Cordova, and server-side adaptation and integration, constructed using Worklight, could be used to build a mobile health app for the enterprise. The pieces are there, and I have come to their conclusion that the server-side integration, while important, should really just be built into the application server, which hosts the server-side API. If the server-side API is built to an industry standard like NIEM or HL7, then the burden of integration is lightened, and maybe it could take place within a resource-based suite of client-side services.

The greatest illumination for me came when I stopped trying to build the server back end and with a client app extending it, and instead focused on a client app with an HL7 FHIR standardized interface. Do I have to do a lot of adaptation on the server? Depends on the data source, but... In an ideal world, thee data source has low impedance, and it is already FHIR JSON. In that case, an Angular app built around the core FHIR resources just works.

So I'm taking my references implementation in a slightly different direction, less coupled to an enterprise mobility platform, more reliant on a strong client-side architecture which is resource-based and standardized for the health industry, leveraging profiles from organizations like IHE and HL7 where possible, and probably with a more specific focus on care plans and questionnaires, without losing focus of prescription medications.

I'm also going to try posting more frequently, for a variety of reasons, so please feel free to comment. I have really enjoyed working with AngularJS over the last year, and I know I'm not alone in this.

Tracking the convergence of NIEM and HL7

Every few years, someone asks "could you implement HL7 with NIEM" or vice versa; well, with enough resources, you can accomplish anything, but what I want to do here is consider how the two standards are converging, how they are divergent, and why. NIEM has had a Health Domain for several years, evolving under the auspices of HHS. You wouldn't know it from the LinkedIn group.

The two communities could really benefit from sharing an understanding that to save money on implementation and stakeholder engagement, they need tools which provide the ability to easily and visually review and alter exchange packages (IEPD, FHIR Conformance Profiles), to reach absolute consensus; and then generate terse and completely accurate validation packages and conformance suites, so as to increase ongoing information safety. We need to be able to put all of the important details on one page.


NIEM and HL7 are both messaging models based on an underlying information model, and whereas HL7 is moving away from design by constraint towards design by extension, NIEM has always relied upon an extension mechanism. The difference here comes down to the size of the NIEM problem space ("everything"), as opposed to HL7 ("healthcare"), for which you might be able to imagine a totalizing framework that encompasses all workflow in all contexts; however, for HL7 as well, a workable extension mechanism is proving to be essential to success, and this is a change from the paradigm established with HL7v3.

NIEM and HL7 are both moving towards support for multiple wire formats. In domestic U.S. markets, HL7 means either "pipe and caret" v2 or "quasi-XML-HTML" hybrid CDA, but internationally, HL7 is an XML standard which is outgrowing the business cases for XML, much like NIEM. For both of these standards to grow and implement future business cases, they will need to also embrace and support JSON, HTML, and RDF, and given time they will.

HL7 is moving away from a proprietary tooling set towards tooling which is readily accessible, like Excel, Java, and XML editors. NIEM already uses a similar toolset, and has several initiatives in play to support open tooling like CAM Editor and UML tooling. One of the difficulties we have run into with HL7 v3 is difficulty sharing visual models, since these are captured in proprietary tooling, and it is here that the NIEM and HL7 communities would both benefit from demanding better tooling. Put simply, shouldn't these two standards support and be supported by a common toolset which extends beyond XMLSpy or Oxygen? And, given time I'm sure they will.

This is something I feel strongly about. At their core, NIEM and HL7 RIM rely on XML Schemas, and yet, XML Schemas are not sufficient to the task. In the HL7 world, as far as v3 Messaging and CDA are concerned, ISO Schematron fills this gap. For NIEM, OASIS CAM performs a similar task; but there is a disservice here to both of CAM and Schematron, that these are treated only as validation tools, when in fact, they contain key pieces of business. The same is true of UML - these should be the tools we use to visually communicate the business to the business.

Some of the tools will be open source, some of them will come from the product world. If the NIEM and HL7 communities articulate their needs, the tool vendors will follow. In short, HL7 and NIEM are both going to need to converge on a set of XML-based tooling that goes beyond XML Schemas and Visio diagrams. The CAM tooling provides some of this. The Excel-based Resource Profiling in FHIR provides some of this. UML tooling provides some of this.

To reduce the burden of approval for stakeholders, both messaging standards need to allow modelers, implementers, and business stakeholders to meet in a room and review the details of a proposed information exchange on a single page, and this will provide high value. When this is happening, information safety increases because the resulting XML Schemas and documentation produced after this meeting will be simpler, more accurate representations of the business.
  

Working with multiple standards for Health

I've been doing some reconsidering over the summer about the existing profiles and use of health standards in Canada, standards like HL7 v2, v3 and CDA. Primarily, v2 is used for ADT (Admission, Discharge and Transfer), but that's a huge chunk of workflow. The reason HL7 v2 is used so pervasively in Canada is because the clinical systems in use in hospitals (Cerner, Epic, Meditech, etc) use v2. At the time the current blueprint for electronic health record adoption was planned, there was an expectation that the U.S. would undergo a process of migration to HL7 v3, and that never happened, and this has left us with a foundation built around HL7 v3 Messaging and its core principles, with a thick transformation layer between this foundation and clinical systems in hospitals.

Obviously, this creates a space of impedance mismatch where continuity of service is put at risk. As a way of mitigating this risk, v3 Messaging is augmented with a companion specification, CDA, the Clinical Document Architecture, which promises to supports health documents like Continuity of Care, Health Questionnaires and Care Plans, as well as business cases using CDA to handle data in migration. Again, in the U.S., HL7 CDA has been used as an alternative to v3 Messaging to support exchange of health information, and in Canada we may benefit from following that path, but if we do, we should be aware that this path is probably morphing as we speak into a thing called "C-CDA using HL7 FHIR XML".

As discussed here and elsewhere, FHIR is a successor standard to all three HL7 standards, providing support for JSON and REST which have not been previously available, as well as the ability to essentially re-implement CDA using a similar XML standard. FHIR has a lot of potential in Canada and abroad in order to enable mobile health applications, but in order to design an build these applications, we need to reconsider the iEHR architecture on which we are currently building.

To that end, I have a number of suggestions:

1. Foster communication between systems using like standards: for instance, we have invested substantially in communicating clinical information between clinical systems in hospitals and the foundation layer of Labs, Pharmacies and Diagnostic Imaging; but can we find quick wins through improved intercommunication amongst the domains in the foundation, or between the enterprise systems that use v2 natively?
2. Create an adaptation layer supporting lightweight secure access: this is where FHIR may play a part, used to expose high value information across the enterprise. The danger in providing an incomplete picture is that people will take it for a complete picture; because FHIR is rooted in extension, composition and aggregation, it may provide a way to build a fuller picture of longitudinal patient information.
3. Registries like Provider, Client and Location should provide more comprehensive Identity Assurance; again, this really means removing continuity gaps within the services available to a patient, thus providing the history of interactions which is a necessary part of guaranteeing identity.
4. Create an application layer that supports developing mobile and web applications that can connect directly to the resources exposed in step 2.

This last step is what I have been reconsidering. As a document standard, CDA has had some success as a technology for mobile health in the U.S., under the auspices of Meaningful Use; however, a mobile health application built to natively use HL7 FHIR JSON and XML, even during the early adoption phase, would still be a solid target for reuse, and it is this capability for reuse that I find compelling, more than using HL7 FHIR to build new registries, repositories, or even greenfield projects. Simply put, if you build a health app using HL7 FHIR as an interface specification, you may still need to perform server side adaptation, but more than likely you would anyway. The benefit from doing so is that you are constructing a stationary target, and that is invaluable. 

HIMSS14 and the Culture of Interoperability

Interesting follow up piece to HIMSS14 from Deloitte in WSJ, and a few thoughts on human and machine interoperability. The message:

Interoperability standards are often overemphasized in discussions of data sharing, and it is important to understand that standards for interoperability already exist and can be implemented. What is critical is shedding the light on building interoperability into vendor design of medical products versus just building standards. Enlisting provider buy-in is one way of supporting this goal.

 

We have the standards, now we need to apply them. For modern interoperability standards like HL7 CDA, for instance, the barrier to entry is incredibly low – you can wrap an existing PDF in an appropriate header, which is essentially boilerplate, and you have satisfied the lowest level of CDA compliance. What is important to understand here is that “clinical interoperability” does not have to imply “machine-readable” except in the broad sense of syntactically capable of exchange between two systems or components. The lowest level of interoperability is exchange of human-readable content within a structure that can later be extended to support machine-readable coding. 

From the HL7 Standards blog:

The primary characteristic of a CDA document is that it must be readable by humans. The CDA specification states that, “human readability guarantees that a receiver of a CDA document can algorithmically display the clinical content of the note on a standard Web browser.” This requirement means that a clinician or patient can take a CDA document and display it on any computer with a web browser without the need to load any additional application.

The real work in interoperability, as we know, is in rationalizing and aligning code-sets. That's a governance issue. Exposing human-readable content in a structured fashion is important, as described above. But is it possible to access a system's supported vocabulary  and conformance profile using a standard Web browser? Maybe that would be useful as well. Incidentally, that's one of the ways FHIR goes beyond CDA. Clinical interoperability is about exchanging a specific type of information, for instance, exchanging clinical information about a patient that allows an exchange partner to leverage what we already know about them. One of the things we should be able to exchange is a conformance profile that defines how such an exchange can take place.

This is at the heart of an ongoing debate in Canada about the future of both CDA and SNOMED-CT. We have existing standards and terminology sets, so aren't these adequate to the task? What can we learn from this debate about what factors contribute to the success or failure of clinical interoperability projects? How can we reduce complexity, while increasing availability of information and metadata?