25gmds194 10.3205/25gmds194 urn:nbn:de:0183-25gmds1944 Meeting Abstract Staemmler Staemmler Martin M

Hochschule Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 information systems health information interoperability 20260401 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0631 194 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie 70. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e. V. (GMDS) V: Gesundheitsdatennutzung – data quality Jena 20250907 20250911 Abstr. 281 TextIntroduction: Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) has a long history for message and information exchange between different IT systems in hospitals. It reduces existing heterogeneity and compensates for partial incompatibilities between IT systems and vendors . Recently, EAI functionality has been combined with a platform approach, resulting in an Application Integration Platform (AIP) . An AIP may serve a variety of purposes, like (i) health information exchange (HIE), (ii) process support, (iii) data analysis, (iv) statistics and reporting or (v) research .Methods: The objective is to assess AIP implementations and identify generations reflecting AIP concept and functionality. From a data management viewpoint an AIP might or might not include data storage capabilities. Furthermore, its ability to handle different data object classes (unstructured documents, DICOM images or structured data) allows for further discrimination. For complying with the criteria for structured data an IOP has to include a generic data model allowing conversion and expression of information in different, standard based representations. An IOP which facilitates process definition, orchestration and instantiation is valued as a different generation. Also data analytics capabilities for selected patient populations using the generic data model qualify for a separate generation.Results: The identified criteria served to identify five generations (0 to 4) of AIPs:0 application integration, no storage: receive, validate transform, send messages1 unstructured data management: query, retrieve, store data objects2 structured data management: query, retrieve, store information3 process support: design (BPMN, UML, …), programming constructs4 data analytics: local/federated query, data analysis (statistical … AI based)Besides the property “function” stated above further properties, namely (i) user interaction, (ii) data objects handling, (iii) semantics support, (iv) available standards and (v) typical IT-systems involved were assigned to characterize each generation. Using these generations to assess AIP platforms confirmed the approach. For example, the HIE platform of a hospital group got generations 0 to 2 assigned, whereas the national Medical Informatics Initiative implements generations 1,2 and 4. A research platform does not support generation 3.Discussion: The positioning of process support as generation 3 might be questionable, but is confirmed by its taking advantage from underlying generations 1 and 2. Since process support is more prevalent than data analytics an exchange with generation would not be justified.Other assessments of AIP take a different viewpoint than this abstract. The rise of health care platforms identifies “pure data platforms” with integration at a “horizontal level” for a specific medical condition or at “vertical level” to reflect a patient journey. In addition, “meta platforms” are mentioned to connect between different health service providers. The patient-centric health record sharing platforms assessment takes a governance oriented viewpoint to control and steer the platform design. It discriminates between governmental or commercial governance for providing the HIE framework, covering regulatory, data privacy and ontology based semantic annotation. Furthermore, a distinction is made between healthcare organizations pursuing a common concept or acting independently but still adhering to framework.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required. Torab-Miandoab A Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review 2023 BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 18 Torab-Miandoab A, et al. Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Jan 24;23(1):18. Berger R Future of health 2 | The rise of healthcare platforms Berger R. Future of health 2 The rise of healthcare platforms. [last access 23.4.2025]. Available from: https://e-health-com.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/Downloads/Roland_Berger_Future_of_health_2_-_The_rise_of_healthcare_platforms.pdf https://e-health-com.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/Downloads/Roland_Berger_Future_of_health_2_-_The_rise_of_healthcare_platforms.pdf Prokosch U MIRACUM: Medical Informatics in Research and Care in University Medicine 2018 Methods Inf Med e82–e91 Prokosch U. MIRACUM: Medical Informatics in Research and Care in University Medicine. Methods Inf Med. 2018;57(Open 1):e82–e91. Azarm M Towards a universal patient-centric health record sharing platform 2023 Health Policy and Technology 100819 Azarm M, et al. Towards a universal patient-centric health record sharing platform. Health Policy and Technology. 2023;12:100819 Matzerath I Bosk J Nutzung einer strategischen Datendrehscheibe bei der AMEOS Gruppe 2024 Health Data Management 405-416 Matzerath I, Bosk J. Nutzung einer strategischen Datendrehscheibe bei der AMEOS Gruppe [Use of a stretegic Health Data Plattform within the AMEOS Group]. In: Henke V, et al, editors. Health Data Management. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2024. p. 405-416. 0 0 0 0