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.
FHIRA -post collection
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
There seems to be a non-argument between openEHR and FHIR, and this article looks at some of the hype (and consternation) of both technologies.
With the adoption of HL7 FHIR taking baby steps across the NHS, it is worth pondering why the new standard exists in the first place. Successful interoperability can be defined as knowing what information is to be sent and received by two systems, when the transaction occurred and why the information was exchanged in the first place. This 'what', 'when' and 'why' represents a complete end to end package; defined and re-usable. HL7 V3 was designed to be this package but it is generally seen to be a failure. Where HL7 V2 was exceptionally flexible, it could not be relied upon to carry standardised information and carried risk that each message needed to be re-engineered at some point in the transmission. There are several ways of