Finding a balance in your interface testing and monitoring approach that proactively utilizes both features is instrumental if you seek to ensure the quality of data you transfer to external applications.
When evaluating a data integrity approach, there are four distinct categories where an organization could find itself performing: unpredictable, responsive, methodical and high performance. These distinct categories are the result of a proactive or reactive use of interface monitoring and testing features. (You can find a diagram of the Clinical Data Integrity Model here .)
Ideally, an institution would find itself meeting the characterstics of the “High Performance” category, which means an equally proactive discipline has been established for both Interface Testing and Interface Monitoring.
Why does being in the “High Performance” quadrant matter?
- Clinical data that is sent to another healthcare application or entity is sent as intended.
- Clinical data that is received from another healthcare application or entity is accepted as required.
- Healthcare interfaces are fully tested and documented before being deployed.
- Interfaces are developed efficiently within requirements – the selected HL7 is a Standards Developing Organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to author consensus-based standards representing a board view from healthcare system stakeholders. HL7 has compiled a collection of message form... standard version and modifications included.
- Messages are being exchanged in a timely manner. Bottlenecks or potential problem areas are identified quickly and proactively repaired. Healthcare departments and external entities (e.g., imaging centers, laboratories) receive high performing customer service which boosts their confidence in the integrity of the data being used.
For more details on how your organization can ensure its data integrity, see this Corepoint Health white paper: Interfacing Insights: What is Your Data Integrity Model?