Converge or Collide? Making Sense of a Plethora of Open Data Standards in Health Care.

Practitioners of digital health are familiar with disjointed data environments that often inhibit effective communication among different elements of the ecosystem. This fragmentation leads in turn to issues such as inconsistencies in services versus payments, wastage, and notably, care delivered being less than best-practice. Despite the long-standing recognition of interoperable data as a potential solution, efforts in achieving interoperability have been disjointed and inconsistent, resulting in numerous incompatible standards, despite the widespread agreement that fewer standards would enhance interoperability. This paper introduces a framework for understanding health care data needs, discussing the challenges and opportunities of open data standards in the field. It emphasizes the necessity of acknowledging diverse data standards, each catering to specific viewpoints and needs, while proposing a categorization of health care data into three domains, each with its distinct characteristics and challenges, along with outlining overarching design requirements applicable to all domains and specific requirements unique to each domain.

Technological Capabilities to Assess Digital Excellence in Hospitals in High Performing Health Care Systems: International eDelphi Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals worldwide are developing ambitious digital transformation programs as part of broader efforts to create digitally advanced health care systems. However, there is as yet no consensus on how best to characterize and assess digital excellence in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop an international agreement on a defined set of technological capabilities to assess digital excellence in hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage international modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) consensus-building exercise, which included a qualitative analysis of free-text responses. In total, 31 international health informatics experts participated, representing clinical, academic, public, and vendor organizations. RESULTS: We identified 35 technological capabilities that indicate digital excellence in hospitals. These are divided into two categories: (a) capabilities within a hospital (n=20) and (b) capabilities enabling communication with other parts of the health and social care system, and with patients and carers (n=15). The analysis of free-text responses pointed to the importance of nontechnological aspects of digitally enabled change, including social and organizational factors. Examples included an institutional culture characterized by a willingness to transform established ways of working and openness to risk-taking. The availability of a range of skills within digitization teams, including technological, project management and business expertise, and availability of resources to support hospital staff, were also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of criteria for assessing digital excellence in hospitals. Our findings highlight the need to broaden the focus from technical functionalities to wider digital transformation capabilities.

From EHR to PHR: let's get the record straight.

This article reflects on the changing nature of health information access and the transition of focus from electronic health records (EHRs) to personal health records (PHRs) along with the challenges and need for alignment of national initiatives for EHR and PHR in the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. The importance of implementing integrated EHRs as a route to enhance the quality of health delivery has been increasingly understood. EHRs, however, carry several limitations that include major fragmentation through multiple providers and protocols throughout the NHS. Questions over ownership and control of data further complicate the potential for fully utilising records. Analysing the previous initiatives and the current landscape, we identify that adopting a patient health record system can empower patients and allow better harmonisation of clinical data at a national level. We propose regional PHR 'hubs' to provide a universal interface that integrates digital health data at a regional level with further integration at a national level. We propose that these PHR hubs will reduce the complexity of connections, decrease governance challenges and interoperability issues while also providing a safe platform for high-quality scalable and sustainable digital solutions, including artificial intelligence across the UK NHS, serving as an exemplar for other countries which wish to realise the full value of healthcare records.

Learning health systems need to bridge the 'two cultures' of clinical informatics and data science.

Background UK health research policy and plans for population health management are predicated upon transformative knowledge discovery from operational "Big Data". Learning health systems require not only data, but feedback loops of knowledge into changed practice. This depends on knowledge management and application, which in turn depend upon effective system design and implementation. Biomedical informatics is the interdisciplinary field at the intersection of health science, social science and information science and technology that spans this entire scope. Issues In the UK, the separate worlds of health data science (bioinformatics, "Big Data") and effective healthcare system design and implementation (clinical informatics, "Digital Health") have operated as 'two cultures'. Much NHS and social care data is of unusably poor quality. Substantial research funding is wasted on 'data cleansing' or by producing very weak evidence. There is not yet a sufficiently powerful professional community or evidence base of best practice to influence the practitioner community or the digital health industry. Recommendation The UK needs increased clinical informatics research and education capacity and capability at much greater scale and ambition to be able to meet policy expectations, address the fundamental gaps in the discipline's evidence base and mitigate the absence of regulation.Independent evaluation of digital health interventions should be the norm, not the exception. Conclusions  Policy makers and research funders need to acknowledge the existing gap between the 'two cultures' and recognise that the full social and economic benefits of digital health and data science can only be realised by accepting the interdisciplinary nature of biomedical informatics and supporting a significant expansion of clinical informatics capacity and capability.