search

wanghaisheng / fhir-in-action

example and tutorial for fhir spec
6 stars 2 forks source link

A Comparative Analysis of HL7 FHIR and openEHR for Electronic Aggregation, Exchange and Reuse of Patient Data in Acute Care #4

Open wanghaisheng opened 6 years ago

wanghaisheng commented 6 years ago

http://ki.se/sites/default/files/eneimi_allwell_brown_a_comparative.pdf

wanghaisheng commented 6 years ago

摘要 Abstract Background: real-time data generated in acute care needs to be aggregated and meaningfully presented for clinical decision-making, exchange, research, and other reuse. Healthcare data standards ensure uniformity of data and semantic interoperability of different health information systems, and many such standards exist. A multicentre hospital interconnectivity project in Sweden needs to identify which of these standards will best suit their needs. Aim: this study set out to analyse the flexibility, extensibility and feasibility of openEHR and FHIR as well as their consistency in preserving semantics, for the electronic aggregation, exchange and reuse of patient data in acute care. Methods: deductive thematic analysis of HL7 FHIR and openEHR specification documents was conducted, and a use case was developed centring on clinical decision support in acute severe asthma. Performance of each standard was evaluated by deploying local and network-based test implementations, committing use case data to them, and performing basic and advanced queries. Ease of implementation, data formalisms, code reuse, querying, terminology and API support were some of the reported measures. Results were descriptive. Results: both standards support multiple database types, powerful APIs and querying, componentization, extensions, code reuse, and consistent data semantics. openEHR uses two-level modelling, has a strong ontological basis, a greater variety and granularity of Archetypes, and support for multiple API and query languages. FHIR is quicker and easier to setup, uses simple and ubiquitous data and query constructs, has solid terminology support and a range of Resources that cover common clinical use. Conclusion: openEHR captures an outstanding level of detail and it delivers on its mandate of defining EHR structure, albeit in a tedious and complicated way. FHIR is lightweight and agile, has better terminology support, is easier to learn, maintain and rapidly deploy either as an interface for data aggregation, exchange and reuse, or as standalone EHR. Keywords: openEHR, FHIR, electronic health record, healthcare data standards, health informatics, semantic interoperability