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.
Trout KE, Chen LW, Wilson FA, Tak HJ, Palm D. The Impact of Electronic Health Records and Meaningful Use on Inpatient Quality. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2021;44(2):e15–23.
3.
Perugu B.
4.
Fry E. Death by a thousand clicks: where electronic health records went wrong [Internet. 26AD;
5.
Hanna-Attisha M. Opinion | how a pediatrician became a detective [Internet]. The New York Times. 2018;
6.
Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority. Identifying and learning from events involving diagnostic error: it’s a process.
Pronovost P. Procuring interoperability: achieving high-quality, connected, and person-centered care. EDU. 2018;
10.
11.
Does the HIPAA privacy rule preempt state laws? HHS.gov. 2007;
12.
Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA).
13.
Healthit, Gov. 26AD;
14.
Principles for Trusted Exchange. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The Trusted Exchange Framework.
15.
Harrington A. TEFCA: how it works in tandem with your HIEcontexture. 26AD;
16.
Benaloh J. Patient controlled encryption.
17.
Benaloh J, Chase M, Horvitz E, Lauter K. Patient controlled encryption. Proceedings of the 2009 ACM workshop on Cloud computing security. ACM; 2009.
18.
Weininger S. The importance of state and context in safe interoperable medical systems. 26AD;
19.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) Department of Health and Human Services. Report to Congress.
20.
Walderhaug S, Mikalsen M, Hartvigsen G, Stav E, Aagedal J. Improving systems interoperability with model-driven software development for healthcare. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;122–6.
21.
Spil T, Klein R. Personal health records success: why Google health failed and what does that mean for microsoft healthvault? 2014;2818–27.
22.
26AD;
23.
Haug P, Narus S, Bledsoe J, Huff S. Promoting national and international standards to build interoperable clinical applications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;555–63.
24.
Boucher C. Citrix cloud services & the healthcare EHR market -citrix blogs. 2018;
25.
Gaynor M, Myung D, Gupta A, Rawn J, Moulton S. Interoperability of Medical Applications and Devices. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008). IEEE; 2008. p. 240–240.
26.
Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Beebe C, Biron PV, Boyer SL, Essin D, et al. The HL7 Clinical Document Architecture. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2001;8(6):552–69.
27.
Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. IEEE; 2013.
28.
29.
26AD;
30.
Improving public health surveillance through interoperability, data standards, and legislation. 2019;
31.
Manos D. Da Vinci submits comments on Interop 3 proposed rule [Internet]. HL. 2023;
32.
Courtney B. An investigation into the use of HL7 clinical document architecture as a standard for discharge summaries in Ireland. 2011;
Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;363(6):501–4.
37.
What is clinical document architecture (CDA)? [Internet]. Definition from TechTarget.
38.
Rocha B, Pabbathi D, Schaeffer M, Goldberg H. Screening Consolidated Clinical Document Architecture (CCDA) Documents for Sensitive Data Using a Rule-Based Decision Support System. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2017;26(01):137–48.
39.
D’amore J, Bouhaddou O, Mitchell S, Li C, Leftwich R, Turner T. Interoperability progress and remaining data quality barriers of certified health information technologies. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;358–67.
40.
D’amore J. Are meaningful use stage 2 certified EHRs ready for interoperability? Findings from the SMART C-CDA collaborative -PMC. 2014;
41.
Fedorov A, Clunie D, Ulrich E, Bauer C, Wahle A, Brown B. DICOM for quantitative imaging biomarker development: a standards based approach to sharing clinical data and structured PET/CT analysis results in head and neck cancer research. PeerJ. 2016;4.
42.
Imaging integration WG.
43.
Wiki PI.
44.
Gupta. Significance of digital imaging and communication in medicine in digital imaging.
45.
Oosterwijk H. The DICOM standard, overview and characteristics: a whitepaper. 2004;
46.
Cyleralabs. HIPAA-protected malware? Exploiting DICOM flaw to embed malware in CT/MRI imagery [Internet]. Cylera Labs. 2019;
47.
Varma DR. Managing DICOM images: Tips and tricks for the radiologist. Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging. 2012;22(01):4–13.
48.
Bhartiya S, Mehrotra D. Applying CHAID algorithm to investigate critical attributes of secured interoperable health data exchange. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare. 2015;8(1):25.
49.
50.
Segal L. Introduction. The Dream of Reality. Springer New York; 2001. p. 1–3.
51.
Noumeir R, Renaud B. IHE cross-enterprise document sharing for imaging: interoperability testing software. Source Code for Biology and Medicine. 2010;5(1).
52.
Query for existing data for mobile (QEDm) -IHE wiki.
53.
Dogac A, Kabak Y, Namli T, Okcan A. Collaborative Business Process Support in eHealth: Integrating IHE Profiles Through ebXML Business Process Specification Language. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 2008;12(6):754–62.
54.
Windle JR, Katz AS, Dow JP, Fry ETA, Keller AM, Lamp T, et al. 2016 ACC/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI Health Policy Statement on Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2016;68(12):1348–64.
55.
Meenan C, Erickson B, Knight N, Fossett J, Olsen E, Mohod P, et al. Workflow Lexicons in Healthcare: Validation of the SWIM Lexicon. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2017;30(3):255–66.
56.
Daniel C, Ouagne D, Sadou E, Paris N, Hussain S, Jaulent M, et al. Cross border semantic interoperability for learning health systems: The EHR4CR semantic resources and services. Learning Health Systems. 2016;1(1).
57.
Witting K. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise.
58.
Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2016;23(5):899–908.
59.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2020;
60.
Blobel B, Phealth. Norway in SearchWorks catalog. 2018;182–5.
61.
Richer J. Health relationship trust profile for fast healthcare interoperability resources (FHIR) UMA resources. 2017;
62.
Apple announces solution bringing health records to iPhone -Apple.
63.
Tulchinsky I. Behind the scenes of cloud healthcare API.
64.
Pq R, Fhir, Fda. 2023;
65.
Expekesheth. SMART on FHIR -azure API for FHIR. 2023;
66.
Introducing FHIR works on AWS. 2020;
67.
Braunstein M. Epic on EHR interoperability: not a "1-time project. 2015;
68.
Hay D. Pictorial representation of FHIR resources. 2014;
69.
2018;
70.
Halamka J. Dispatch from the digital health frontier: the Argonaut project charter. 2014;
71.
Argonaut project" to build on JASON Task Force’s FHIR recommendations [Internet]. Healthcare Innovation.
72.
Edition health information technology (Health IT) certification criteria, 2015 edition base electronic health record (EHR) definition, and ONC health IT certification program modifications. 2015;
73.
Argonaut data query IG.
74.
Marquard B. Overview of argonaut initiatives. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
75.
Overview_Of_Argonaut_Initiatives, Pdf.
76.
Chaput D, Fhir®. Advancing interoperability standards in the API economy. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2020;
77.
Applicability statement for secure health transport.
78.
Parmar A. Celebrating and highlighting digital health innovation in the Midwest. 2017;
79.
80.
Home », Directtrust.
81.
82.
Abstract model examples -direct project.
83.
Velamuri S. QRDA-technology overview and lessons learned. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2010;(3):41–8.
84.
Mcbridge S. Nursing informatics for the advanced practice nurse. 2022;
85.
Moesel C. eCQI 101: Standards for Representing eCQMs. The MITRE Corporation. 2015;
86.
Braunstein ML. Health Informatics on FHIR: How HL7’s New API is Transforming Healthcare. Springer International Publishing; 2018.
87.
CMS implementation guide for quality reporting document architecture category III.
88.
Exchanging clinical findings.
89.
90.
Dixon B. Health information exchange: navigating and managing a network of health information systems.
91.
Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(5):382–5.
92.
HL7 standards product brief-HL7 version 3 standard: representation of the health quality measure format (eMeasure) release 1 [Internet].
93.
Automating performance measurement using electronic health records [Internet].
94.
Pragmatic Approaches to Interoperability.
95.
Quality reporting document architecture (QRDA) overview of category I and III reports. 2013;
96.
Dolin R, Goodrich K, Kallem C, Alschuler L, Holtz P. Setting the standard: EHR quality reporting rises in prominence due to meaningful use. J AHIMA. 2014;(1):42–8.
97.
Javellana M. Developing electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) for use in CMS programs. 2014;
98.
A new era for measure development: clinical quality language is here! [Internet. 2017;
99.
Electronic specifications for clinical quality measures.
100.
Cms.
101.
Identity is the great enabler: putting patients at the center of health IT.
102.
Maler E. Extending the power of consent with user-managed access: a standard architecture for asynchronous, centralizable, Internet-scalable consent. IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops. 2015;175–9.
103.
Heart Wg. 2014;
104.
History of prescription drug monitoring programs.
105.
Rhodes E, Wilson M, Robinson A, Hayden JA, Asbridge M. The effectiveness of prescription drug monitoring programs at reducing opioid-related harms and consequences: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2019;19(1).
106.
Boyles O. What is PDMP? | PDMP medical meaning. 2019;
107.
Connecting for impact: linking potential prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to patient care using health IT.
108.
Deyo RA, Irvine JM, Millet LM, Beran T, O’Kane N, Wright DA, et al. Measures Such As Interstate Cooperation Would Improve The Efficacy Of Programs To Track Controlled Drug Prescriptions. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):603–13.
109.
Us Meds.
110.
Wen H, Schackman BR, Aden B, Bao Y. States With Prescription Drug Monitoring Mandates Saw A Reduction In Opioids Prescribed To Medicaid Enrollees. Health Affairs. 2017;36(4):733–41.
111.
Henry Ford’s PDMP-epic integration saves 250 clinician hours a month. 2019;
112.
Griggs C, Weiner S, Feldman J. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: Examining Limitations and Future Approaches. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015;16(1):67–70.
113.
Richwine C, Barker W. Physicians have widespread access to state PDMP data, but data sharing varies across states.
114.
Haffajee R. Mandatory use of prescription drug monitoring programs [Internet]. Law and Medicine. JAMA. 2015;
115.
Rutkow L, Turner L, Lucas E, Hwang C, Alexander GC. Most Primary Care Physicians Are Aware Of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs, But Many Find The Data Difficult To Access. Health Affairs. 2015;34(3):484–92.
116.
Lutz J. MIPS and PDMP usage: how they work together.
117.
New electronic health record system update [Internet]. VA Saginaw Health Care, US Department of Veterans Affairs. 2022;
118.
Caldwell P. We’ve spent billions to fix our medical records, and they’re still a mess. Here’s why [Internet]. Mother Jones. 2015;
119.
FastStats electronic medical records. 2023;
120.
Alder-Mildstein J. Moving past the EHR interoperability blame game [Internet]. Catalyst Carryover. NEJM. 2017;
121.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
122.
Highlightedregulatorydates, Pdf.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
