Is FHIR the Solution to the Registry of the Future? | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Is FHIR the Solution to the Registry of the Future?

August 1, 2017
by David Raths
| Reprints
Health systems might have 165 registries coming to them wanting their data
Click To View Gallery

In 2006 there were only seven or eight clinical specialty registries in the United States. As part of HITECH Act, specialists got credit for submitting patients to a specialty registry. In 2016, 10 years later, there were 165 specialty registries.

Years ago, registry data was done manually by chart abstraction. Gradually that evolved to using electronic chart abstraction forms, but it is not true electronic data capture. Russ Leftwich, M.D., senior clinical advisor for interoperability at InterSystems and co-chair of its the Learning Health Systems Work Group at HL7, says the only feasible way to enable future registries is by using data captured in EHRs and other systems in a reproducible way. “That suggests using FHIR,” he said.

Health systems might have 165 registries coming to them wanting their data, and they can’t give it to them in 165 different ways, he said. “There needs to be a standardized way to get those same data elements — and for the most part it is the same data elements — that different registries want. The specialty part comes down to a small percentage of the total data that systems hold.”

From a technical standpoint, he said, it needs to be provided according to a specific data model or data definition. You can’t have different ways of asking for the same data. “FHIR is the ideal technology to provide that data in a standard format, using the same FHIR profile or application programming interface to provide that data.”

The Healthcare Service Platform Consortium and HL7’s Clinical Information Modeling Initiative are working together to create information models that are then expressed as FHIR profiles so registries could ask for that data in the same format.

Informaticists are working to create a repository of FHIR profiles that can be interoperable. “Interoperability doesn’t depend on FHIR, per se, but on using the same FHIR profile for the same data,” Leftwich explained.  “If people hadn’t seen a zebra before, and one called it a white horse with black stripes and the other called a black horse with white stripes, any human would understand they are talking about the same thing, but computers can’t do that. Computers have to have a very specific definition of that data concept to exchange it with another computer.”

Another thing that makes FHIR the solution to the registry of the future, Leftwich added, is that subscribing to data is easier with FHIR. There is a mechanism in the FHIR specification that allows you to subscribe to data the same way we subscribe to someone’s Tweets or Facebook posts. “So if registries have entered an individual as a patient in the registry, they can subscribe to the data from that individual that will be sent to them as FHIR resources as it becomes available.”

EHR vendors are enthusiastic about this approach. “They were one of the first to recognize what the F in FHIR stood for,” Leftwich said. “It stands for fast. When they realized they could create interfaces to their data so much faster with FHIR, they were all over it from the beginning.”

“When the vendors realized that a new person with a computer science degree could in a couple of days start to understand FHIR and build interfaces in a few days that previously took six weeks, it was obvious to them what the value of FHIR was going to be,” he said.

Likewise, registries need a new way to get data or it will become increasingly burdensome to invest the time to feed the data into them.

“Data in healthcare is growing exponentially, and yet we are using the technology and standards invented 30 years ago to move that data around,” Leftwich said. “It is amazing we have gotten as far as we have.”

 


2018 Seattle Health IT Summit

Renowned leaders in U.S. and North American healthcare gather throughout the year to present important information and share insights at the Healthcare Informatics Health IT Summits.

October 22 - 23, 2018 | Seattle


/article/interoperability/fhir-solution-registry-future
/news-item/interoperability/epic-plans-meeting-non-epic-users-data-sharing-capabilities

Epic Plans Meeting for Non-Epic Users on Data Sharing Capabilities

August 16, 2018
by Heather Landi
| Reprints

Verona, Wis.-based Epic is inviting healthcare provider organizations that don’t use Epic’s electronic health record (EHR) to its “un-Users Group Meeting” at its Verona headquarters to learn how to exchange data with Epic.

The event, planned for September 26, will provide information to healthcare provider organizations about how to exchange charts with providers in their community who use Epic, even if providers use a different EHR— or no EHR at all.

According to Epic’s unUGM website, the event is for “executives and strategic leaders of provider organizations who want to learn and discuss how to exchange with providers in their community who use Epic.”

“Access to a patient’s information, regardless of where he or she has been seen, helps providers deliver the best patient care. The first Un-Users Group Meeting (unUGM) is another way we’re reaching out to the leaders of health systems using other EHRs—or even no EHRs—to help them get connected to the Epic users in their communities,” Dave Fuhrmann, Epic’s vice president of interoperability, said in a prepared statement.

According to the event agenda, topics of discussion include options for exchanging patient data with providers through Carequality, Care Everywhere, health information exchange (HIE) and Direct messaging, as well as patient-directed options, including MyChart, Share Everywhere, Lucy, and Blue Button.

There will also be discussion about interoperability success stories, using both non-Epic and Epic EHRs, and the current state of coordinated care in the U.S. and the use of existing tools to close care gaps, improve communication, and reduce costs.

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/interoperability/amazon-google-ibm-and-other-techgiants-pledge-remove-barriers

Amazon, Google, IBM and Other Tech Giants Pledge to Remove Barriers to Interoperability

August 14, 2018
by Heather Landi
| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

Six of the world's biggest technology companies, including Microsoft, Google, IBM and Amazon, made a joint pledge at the White House Monday to remove interoperability barriers and to make progress on adoption of health data standards.

The announced came during the Blue Button 2.0 Developer Conference in Washington, D.C. where Microsoft joined with Amazon, Google, IBM, Salesforce and Oracle to jointly commit to support healthcare interoperability by advancing healthcare standards such as HL7 (Health Level Seven International), FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources), and the Argonaut Project. They also pledged to remove interoperability barriers, particularly as it relates to the adoption of technologies enabled through the cloud and artificial intelligence (AI).

Dean Garfield, president and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, said in a statement, “Today’s announcement will be a catalyst to creating better health outcomes for patients at a lower cost. As transformative technologies like cloud computing and artificial intelligence continue to advance, it is important that we work towards creating partnerships that embrace open standards and interoperability.

“We commend the White House Office of American Innovation for their leadership in being a catalyst for moving health care beyond siloed systems and varied data standards. As well, we celebrate Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and Salesforce for their commitment to helping to advance open healthcare standard. The opportunity to unleash greater innovation in health care is here and working together we can seize it,” Garfield said.

In a joint statement, the technology companies made a commitment to remove barriers to “frictionless data exchange,” noting that they share “the common quest to unlock the potential in healthcare data, to deliver better outcomes at lower costs.”

The commitment specifically states:

“In engaging in this dialogue, we start from these foundational assumptions: The frictionless exchange of healthcare data, with appropriate permissions and controls, will lead to better patient care, higher user satisfaction, and lower costs across the entire health ecosystem.

Healthcare data interoperability, to be successful, must account for the needs of all global stakeholders, empowering patients, healthcare providers, payers, app developers, device and pharmaceuticals manufacturers, employers, researchers, citizen scientists, and many others who will develop, test, refine, and scale the deployment of new tools and services.

Open standards, open specifications, and open source tools are essential to facilitate frictionless data exchange. This requires a variety of technical strategies and ongoing collaboration for the industry to converge and embrace emerging standards for healthcare data interoperability, such as HL7 FHIR and the Argonaut Project.

We understand that achieving frictionless health data exchange is an ongoing process, and we commit to actively engaging among open source and open standards communities for the development of healthcare standards, and conformity assessment to foster agility to account for the accelerated pace of innovation.”

Gregory J. Moore M.D., Ph.D., vice president of healthcare, Google Cloud, said in a statement, “We are pleased to join others in the technology and healthcare ecosystem in this joint commitment to remove barriers and create solutions for the adoption of technologies for healthcare data interoperability. This will enable the delivery of high quality patient care, higher user satisfaction, and lower costs across the entire healthcare ecosystem.”

Patients should have access to their data, said Mark Dudman, head of global product and AI development, IBM Watson Health, in a statement following the announced commitment. Patients also should have the flexibility to use products and services across different healthcare systems, with confidence that they all are working seamlessly for their care, he said. “We are proud to participate in this pledge and look forward to working with industry and the developer community to ensure appropriate access to data and the use of that data to support vibrant communities and solve health challenges for people everywhere.”

In a blog post, Josh Mandel, chief architect, Microsoft Healthcare, notes that interoperability is an overlapping set of technical and policy challenges, from data access to common data models to information exchange to workflow integration – and these challenges often pose a barrier to healthcare innovation.

Mandel, who previously worked at Google Life Sciences and on the research faculty at Boston Children’s Hospital where he worked on the SMART Health IT Platform, notes that support for the Meaningful Use Common Clinical Data Set grows and it is becoming easier to plug new tools into clinical workflows, analyze clinical histories, collect new data, and coordinate care.” Many of these technical capabilities have been available within small, tight-knit health systems for a long time – but developing these capabilities has required complex, custom engineering and ongoing maintenance and support. Driving toward open architecture makes adoption faster, easier and cheaper,” he wrote.

True interoperability in healthcare requires end-to end solutions, rather than independent pieces, which may not work together, Mandel wrote. “Transforming healthcare means working together with organizations across the ecosystem. Today’s joint interoperability statement reflects the feedback from our healthcare customers and partners, and together we will lay a technical foundation to support value-based care.”

 

Related Insights For: Interoperability

/news-item/interoperability/industry-stakeholders-urge-onc-move-forward-information-blocking-rules

Industry Stakeholders Urge ONC to Move Forward on Information Blocking Rules

August 8, 2018
by Heather Landi
| Reprints

In a strongly worded letter to National Coordinator Donald Rucker, M.D., several healthcare and health IT industry groups expressed frustration with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT’s lack of progress in publishing information blocking regulations, as required in the 21st Century Cures Act.

“It has been 601 days since the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. Every day that the administration delays implementation of these critical provisions places patients at risk of harm,” the letter states. Stakeholders including Health IT Now, Research!America, Oracle, the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA), the American Academy of Family Physicians, Cambia Health Solutions and Claim Your Health Data Coalition signed the letter dated August 6.

In the letter, addressed to both Dr. Rucker and Daniel Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the stakeholder groups note that the 21st Century Cures Act, which was enacted in December 2016, requires the HHS Secretary to “issue regulations to prevent information blocking and to also identify reasonable and necessary activities that do not constitute information blocking.” Further, the law requires ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to submit reports on claims of health information technology products or developers of such products not being interoperable or resulting in information blocking and actions that result in information blocking. “The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has enforcement authority over vendors and providers who are found to engage in information blocking,” the letter states.

The stakeholder groups also contend that “information blocking poses a significant risk to patient safety and greatly contributes to increased costs and waste in the health care system.”

According to reporting from Politico, during ONC’s 2nd Interoperability Forum this week in Washington, D.C., Rucker told the form audience that ONC is still working on the rule. The rule’s release has been delayed several times and is not expected to be released in September.

“Rucker emphasized Monday that his goal is to make protocols and standards that would let large amounts of health data flow easily between health providers, not just individual patient charts. He and other officials emphasized that ONC’s work is all being done within the confines of HIPAA,” the Politico article stated. Rucker also noted that properly defining which behaviors do and don’t constitute information blocking is “hard to sort out,” and the rule is a “work in progress,” Politico reported.

In a separate statement regarding ONC's delay in issuing an information blocking proposed rule, Douglas Fridsma, M.D., Ph.D., AMIA president and CEO, said, "Information blocking is the absence of interoperability, and there are numerous reasons why information may not flow as intended. Some of these reasons are technical, others for business or policy reasons. The socio-technical interoperability stack is complex and so too is the task of identifying which among its layers is responsible for information blocking. This rule must be critically calibrated to account for these layers, and it must be part of a larger conversation about how we will address other aspects of the socio-technical interpretability stack. Now is the time to initiate this broad conversation through release of the proposed information blocking rule."

In the letter, the industry groups also cautioned that “information blocking impedes provider access to the most current, accurate or complete information on their patients. As the administration proposes and implements new rules related to open APIs and interoperability in Medicare’s payment rules for hospitals and doctors, the lack of clear rules of the road needlessly creates uncertainty for vendors and providers alike.”

“We understand the nuance required but feel that it is past time for a proposal to be made,” the stakeholder groups wrote in the letter.

See more on Interoperability ...