How can you control external data access to information about specific patients?
Answer from FHIR stands for Fast Healthcare Interoperable Resource. This emerging standard combines the best features of HL7 V2, HL7 V3, and CDA, while leveraging the latest web service technologies. The design of FHIR is based on RESTful web services. With REST... More Governance Board Co-Chair and Corepoint Health CTO Dave Shaver:
Tags: FHIR, FHIRworks
Although the expectations in the marketplace are that An HL7 standard that is short for Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and pronounced “Fire”. The standard defines a set of “Resources” that represent granular clinical concepts. The resources provide flexibility for a range of healthca... More is going to solve many of these issues of inter-facility communications – and we hope to eventually do exactly that – we've got a long way to go in terms of authentication and access profiles.
So even in today's world, when I present as a caregiver, for example, there's a profile that controls my access to the data that's sitting inside. So I may not have access to particular types of lab results or to mental health data. Those same models need to apply if we're pulling data out. Whether this is the Continuity of Care Document or whether it's a FHIR API that allows me to access the data directly, the same problems remain of plagiarizing the data and controlling access to that data through auditing.
A parallel question is: 'How do caregivers know they can trust the data that has been inserted into an application?'
So it's not only, 'Am I allowed to see it?' But also when the data is input, 'What is the providence of that data?' 'Is the data something that another user at my institution pushed into this database or was it a user at a remote location?' Or even more interesting, of course, is, 'What if the patient themselves pushed the data into a personal health record from their Fitbit?'
If caregivers will be augmenting the clinical record, they need to know where the data came from.