A recent article in the British Journal of General Practice described interoperability in a problematic way. This post argues the necessity to broaden that definition into technical, semantic and clinical interoperability.
As part of some work on recording Adverse Reaction Risks, we took the opportunity to look at binding SNOMED CT into the service. We approached the problem is a very linear way: we need a list of "stuff" that could cause a patient to have an allergic or intolerant reaction. There are a myriad of different term sets available, and SNOMED CT itself has its own. However, by combining a substance with the allergic response you are potentially overly constraining the number of options available to an application. My theory was to record the allergic process separately from the causative agent, and this was backed up by some sterling work by colleagues in the office on patient discharge data. The standard list that SNOMED
The recent report by the Welsh Audit Office, “Informatics Systems in NHS Wales” has some interesting points. But there are some problems with their logic.
I spent an enlightening day at the Clinicans on FHIR event at the King's Fund on November 21. It was good to get a pure FHIR perspective with a group of people who were there to learn about the technology. Although one particularly savvy chap did ask the question about the FHIR hype cycle, the presenter, David Hay admittedly avoided giving a detailed answer. But did add that FHIR advocates feel a responsibility to to dampen down some of the noise that suggests the interoperability technology is answer to all ails. Much of the discussion from the morning's session was confined to interoperability, or the definition of it. I raised the issue on the difference between semantic interoperability and technical interoperability by way of question to
Google's DeepMind has been causing some problems...but should we trust patients to make the right choices about their data?