How can HL7 support HIT interoperability?

HL7 supports healthcare interoperability in several ways: 1. Data Exchange Standards:HL7 defines a framework and related standards for the exchange, integration, sharing, and retrieval of electronic health information. These standards ensure that different health information technology (HIT) systems can communicate with each other. 2. Structured Data:HL7 standards like HL7 v2.x and HL7 v3 3. FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) 4. CCD (Continuity of Care Document) 5.CDA (Clinical Document Architecture) By using these standards, healthcare providers, pharmacies, insurance companies, and other stakeholders in the health ecosystem can share and use information more effectively, improving the quality and coordination of care.

Much has been said and written about HL7 and interoperability. Curiously, I hear or read very little about one of the globally standardized principles for interoperability. FAIR principles, where the letters stand for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, offer a solution to the aforementioned criteria. The big advantage of FAIR principles is that they make use of also globally standardized technology, for example LinkedData. This technology is an extension to existing Internet protocols, such as http. So the big question is when HL7 will be suitable for using FAIR principles and FAIR Data Points for data exchange. Who can respond to that, you perhaps ?

Through its extensive structure, which comprises a set of messaging standards and protocols, HL7 provides HIT interoperability. These standards establish a consistent vocabulary and framework for the exchange of clinical data between healthcare systems, regardless of vendor or platform. By following these standards, healthcare organizations can seamlessly share patient information, lab results, diagnoses, and other relevant data.

Within the HL7 systems, HL7 messages are the building blocks of data interchange. These messages have a defined format and are encoded in accordance with the HL7 messaging standard. They are made up of segments, fields, and components that contain pertinent information regarding patients, clinical observations, drugs, and other topics. To transmit HL7 messages, healthcare systems typically use various communication protocols, such as TCP/IP or HTTP. The messages are sent from the sending system to the receiving system, where they are processed and interpreted. The receiving system then responds with an acknowledgment message to confirm the successful receipt of the HL7 message.

One of HL7's primary advantages is its ability to allow the integration of diverse healthcare systems. HL7's standardized communications formats facilitate data interchange between many systems, including EHR, LIS, RIS, HIE, etc. This interoperability enables healthcare providers to access and use patient information from several sources, resulting in better care coordination and clinical decision-making.

I believe from my experience below are the most common challenges associated with HL7 implementation: Interfacing Costs: Implementing HL7 often involves significant financial investment. Healthcare organizations need to allocate resources for software, hardware, and IT staff training. Smaller healthcare providers may find this challenging due to budget constraints. Interoperability Challenges: True interoperability might be challenging to achieve because not all systems and manufacturers completely implement HL7 standards. Legacy systems may be incompatible, and seamless integration with non-HL7-compliant systems may be difficult.

HL7 is a family of standards, mostly based on messaging. FHIR is not an alternative to HL7, is one of those standards in the HL7 family. HL7 doesn't have many alternatives in terms of standardizing messages, but it has alternatives in terms of clinical documentation or specific content communication like imaging studies. For clinical documentation, openEHR is better than HL7 because it focuses on the content structures and semantics and how those are managed, then the communication part is derived from the information model definitions. For specific content like imaging studies, DICOM is the norm to communicate that content. DICOM also allows to communicate and persist information about signals like ECG, series of images and even video.

The question about alternatives to HL7 is answered in the boxes on the left side of this page. FHIR is an alternative standard that already uses JSON. If you extend the encoding to JSON-LD, you have the ability to publish LinkedData (LD). Without going into all the technical details here, publishing Linked(Open)Data using the HTTP protocol is the optimal way to make data globally Findable, Interoperable, and Reusable. Access rights are defined by the creator when publishing the data according to the FAIR principles on the FAIR Data Point. tip: search for the 5 start open data model for more details.

In the alternatives statement, FHIR is mentioned as one of the options for health data interchange. However, there are other alternatives such as Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), Continuity of Care Document (CCD), Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), and Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing (IHE XDS). The choice of standard may vary depending on the specific use case, system requirements, and the interoperability needs of healthcare organizations and systems.

FHIR est plus une version d'HL7 (au format json et/ou xml) comme la v2 (avec ces écritures en pipe), v3 et CDA (en xml) qu'une alternative

The whole question is wrong. FHIR is part of HL7, one of its standards. The other main standards related to messaging are the HL7 v2.x family and the HL7 v3 family, which was mostly a failure besides the CDA spec which is focused on clinical documentation. The rest of v3 besides CDA didn't have much adoption.

In healthcare, HL7 and FHIR are two significant standards for exchanging electronic health information. While HL7 is a long-standing standard, FHIR is a newer, more flexible standard that uses modern web technologies. Together, these standards enable healthcare organizations to select the one that best suits their needs while ensuring compatibility. In the case of different standards, data translation is required for seamless communication.