There are a few aspects of this and I can only talk from the point of view in healthcare in the UK.
In the care settings Apple has been able to pull at the hearts and minds of care providers and I’ve seen a pull from doctors about making use of apple hardware (and software) whether it has a use/or is a supported platform.
If Apple went for the care settings market they could very easily disrupt the incumbents (in the same way that they did with portable media and the mobile phone) because it quite frankly isn’t that hard. There are many examples of a technically superior product [0] gaining market share in a short period in healthcare and a technology company could easily do that.
However in practice I’m pretty sure that EHR (and care records in general) are going to move to a patient owned model. This would probably mean some provider outside actually owning and storing the data but patients being mindful of their right to have access to general data (not only have access to but act on).
Things that patients could quite easily take from the care settings and make good use of are blood work, actual infection names (most infections result in antibiotics prescribed without the patient being told which organism it is), height/weight, all of their vital signs etc.
In terms of HL7 v2 — it’s not ideal however it is super lightweight — XML (i.e. HL7 v3) is not a good fit for high throughput transactional data (outside of healthcare see BSON, protobufs etc.) HL7 v2 largely suffers from issues around interpretation. There’s a great initiative called FIHR [1] which could help a lot when it comes to CCD.
Kings College Hospital have opened up their HIE [2] which uses a few off the shelve open source components to make working with HL7 very easy.
[0] EMIS/INPS vs TPP in the UK comes to mind. The TPP product pushed EMIS (and more recently INPS) to really up their game.
In the care settings Apple has been able to pull at the hearts and minds of care providers and I’ve seen a pull from doctors about making use of apple hardware (and software) whether it has a use/or is a supported platform.
If Apple went for the care settings market they could very easily disrupt the incumbents (in the same way that they did with portable media and the mobile phone) because it quite frankly isn’t that hard. There are many examples of a technically superior product [0] gaining market share in a short period in healthcare and a technology company could easily do that.
However in practice I’m pretty sure that EHR (and care records in general) are going to move to a patient owned model. This would probably mean some provider outside actually owning and storing the data but patients being mindful of their right to have access to general data (not only have access to but act on).
Things that patients could quite easily take from the care settings and make good use of are blood work, actual infection names (most infections result in antibiotics prescribed without the patient being told which organism it is), height/weight, all of their vital signs etc.
In terms of HL7 v2 — it’s not ideal however it is super lightweight — XML (i.e. HL7 v3) is not a good fit for high throughput transactional data (outside of healthcare see BSON, protobufs etc.) HL7 v2 largely suffers from issues around interpretation. There’s a great initiative called FIHR [1] which could help a lot when it comes to CCD.
Kings College Hospital have opened up their HIE [2] which uses a few off the shelve open source components to make working with HL7 very easy.
[0] EMIS/INPS vs TPP in the UK comes to mind. The TPP product pushed EMIS (and more recently INPS) to really up their game.
[1] http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/
[2] https://github.com/KingsCollegeHospital/rassyeyanie