Why Standards are Not Enough to Solve Healthcare's Interoperability - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

why standards are not enough to solve healthcare s
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Why Standards are Not Enough to Solve Healthcare's Interoperability - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

- DRAFT - Why Standards are Not Enough to Solve Healthcare's Interoperability Problem (And How RDF Can Help) David Booth, Ph.D. Latest version of these slides: http://dbooth.org/2014/standards/ See also associated paper Definition Semantic


slide-1
SLIDE 1
  • DRAFT -

Why Standards are Not Enough to Solve Healthcare's Interoperability Problem (And How RDF Can Help)

David Booth, Ph.D. Latest version of these slides: http://dbooth.org/2014/standards/ See also associated paper

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Definition

Semantic interoperability:

The ability of computer systems to transmit data with unambiguous, shared meaning. – Wikipedia

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Healthcare today

Tower of Babel, Abel Grimmer (1570-1619)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Obviously we need

standards.

And yet . . . .

slide-5
SLIDE 5

How Standards Proliferate

http://xkcd.com/927/ Used by permission

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Standard Vocabularies in UMLS

AIR ALT AOD AOT BI CCC CCPSS CCS CDT CHV COSTAR CPM CPT CPTSP CSP CST DDB DMDICD10 DMDUMD DSM3R DSM4 DXP FMA HCDT HCPCS HCPT HL7V2.5 HL7V3.0 HLREL ICD10 ICD10AE ICD10AM ICD10AMAE ICD10CM ICD10DUT ICD10PCS ICD9CM ICF ICF-CY ICPC ICPC2EDUT ICPC2EENG ICPC2ICD10DUT ICPC2ICD10ENG ICPC2P ICPCBAQ ICPCDAN ICPCDUT ICPCFIN ICPCFRE ICPCGER ICPCHEB ICPCHUN ICPCITA ICPCNOR ICPCPOR ICPCSPA ICPCSWE JABL KCD5 LCH LNC_AD8 LNC_MDS30 MCM MEDLINEPLUS MSHCZE MSHDUT MSHFIN MSHFRE MSHGER MSHITA MSHJPN MSHLAV MSHNOR MSHPOL MSHPOR MSHRUS MSHSCR MSHSPA MSHSWE MTH MTHCH MTHHH MTHICD9 MTHICPC2EAE MTHICPC2ICD10AE MTHMST MTHMSTFRE MTHMSTITA NAN NCISEER NIC NOC OMS PCDS PDQ PNDS PPAC PSY QMR RAM RCD RCDAE RCDSA RCDSY SNM SNMI SOP SPN SRC TKMT ULT UMD USPMG UWDA WHO WHOFRE WHOGER WHOPOR WHOSPA

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Standard Vocabularies in UMLS

AIR ALT AOD AOT BI CCC CCPSS CCS CDT CHV COSTAR CPM CPT CPTSP CSP CST DDB DMDICD10 DMDUMD DSM3R DSM4 DXP FMA HCDT HCPCS HCPT HL7V2.5 HL7V3.0 HLREL ICD10 ICD10AE ICD10AM ICD10AMAE ICD10CM ICD10DUT ICD10PCS ICD9CM ICF ICF-CY ICPC ICPC2EDUT ICPC2EENG ICPC2ICD10DUT ICPC2ICD10ENG ICPC2P ICPCBAQ ICPCDAN ICPCDUT ICPCFIN ICPCFRE ICPCGER ICPCHEB ICPCHUN ICPCITA ICPCNOR ICPCPOR ICPCSPA ICPCSWE JABL KCD5 LCH LNC_AD8 LNC_MDS30 MCM MEDLINEPLUS MSHCZE MSHDUT MSHFIN MSHFRE MSHGER MSHITA MSHJPN MSHLAV MSHNOR MSHPOL MSHPOR MSHRUS MSHSCR MSHSPA MSHSWE MTH MTHCH MTHHH MTHICD9 MTHICPC2EAE MTHICPC2ICD10AE MTHMST MTHMSTFRE MTHMSTITA NAN NCISEER NIC NOC OMS PCDS PDQ PNDS PPAC PSY QMR RAM RCD RCDAE RCDSA RCDSY SNM SNMI SOP SPN SRC TKMT ULT UMD USPMG UWDA WHO WHOFRE WHOGER WHOPOR WHOSPA

Over 100!

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Why are standards

not enough

to solve the problem?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Why does this happen?

  • Standards are imperfect

– Version n+1 improves on version n

  • Diversity of needs

– Different uses require different data – Different uses require different granularity

  • Problem complexity
  • Committee size
  • Changing requirements
  • Medicine and technology do not stand still!
  • Proprietary standards
  • Legacy systems
  • Risk mitigation
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Software trilemma: Pick any two

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Standards trilemma: Pick any two

  • Comprehensive: Handles all use cases
  • Good: High quality
  • Fast: Completed quickly
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Granularity

The granularity dilemma

Blood Pressure: 120/70 Blood Pressure: 120/70, sitting, left_arm, Dinamap_8000 Coarse Fine

Simplicity Complexity

  • Different uses need different granularities
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Why standards and innovation?

  • Dilemma: Standards are necessary for semantic

interoperability, BUT standards are a moving target

– Medical science and technology are continually changing – Medicine is too big and diverse to suddenly adopt

  • ne monster standard

– UMLS lists over 100 vocabularies!

  • Change is the norm!
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Embracing standards and innovation

A universal healthcare exchange language MUST:

  • Leverage existing and future standards – both de facto and

de jure

  • Support decentralized innovation – new terms, vocabularies

and data models

  • Allow continual incorporation of new standards
  • Support a graceful transition from innovation to standard –

without re-tooling

  • RDF is the best available candidate!
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Why is it so difficult to standardize?

  • Healthcare information is complex
  • Lack of incentive
  • Standardization takes time

– Progress goes toward zero as committee size grows

  • Moving target: medical science and

technology continually changing

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Key requirements

  • Continually incorporate new vocabularies

and data models

  • Support existing and future healthcare

standards

  • Support decentralized innovation
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Why include non-standard concepts?

  • Important to send all requested

information in machine-processable form

  • Receiver may be able to use it
  • Helps bootstrap standardization
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Additional requirements for graceful adoption of new concepts

  • Enable new concepts to be semantically

linked to existing ones

  • Enable authoritative definitions of new

concepts to be obtained automatically Best available candidate: RDF

slide-19
SLIDE 19

What does semantic interoperability involve?

  • Machine processable information
  • Common vocabularies
  • Unambiguous concepts
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Why is this so difficult to standardize?

  • Healthcare is complex: thousands of

interrelated concepts, many domains

  • Standardization progress diminishes

toward zero as committee size grows

  • Moving target: medical science and

technology continually changing

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Role of a common language

Universal Healthcare Exchange Language

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Role of a common language

Universal Healthcare Exchange Language Sender1 Sender2 Receiver

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Semantic relevance is relative

  • Blood Pressure measurement:

– Sitting versus Standing

  • Is the difference semantically relevant?
  • Depends on the application!
  • v:BP_Machine rdfs:subClassOf v:BP .
  • v:BP_Manual rdfs:subClassOf v:BP .
  • { ?bp a v:BP_Machine . }

=> { ?bp a v:BP . } .