Digital Health and the State of Interoperable Electronic Health Records
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Digital health systems and innovative care delivery within these systems have great potential to improve national health care and positively impact the health outcomes of patients. However, currently, very few countries have systems that can implement digital interventions at scale. This is partly because of the lack of interoperable electronic health records (EHRs). It is difficult to make decisions for an individual or population when the data on that person or population are dispersed over multiple incompatible systems. This viewpoint paper has highlighted some key obstacles of current EHRs and some promising successes, with the goal of promoting EHR evolution and advocating for frameworks that develop digital health systems that serve populations—a critical goal as we move further into this data-rich century with an ever-increasing number of patients who live longer and depend on health care services where resources may already be strained. This paper aimed to analyze the evolution, obstacles, and current landscape of EHRs and identify fundamental areas of hindrance for interoperability. It also aimed to highlight countries where advances have been made and extract best practices from these examples. The obstacles to EHR interoperability are not easily solved, but improving the current situation in countries where a national policy is not in place will require a focused inquiry into solutions from various sources in the public and private sector. Effort must be made on a national scale to seek solutions for optimally interoperable EHRs beyond status quo solutions. A list of considerations for best practices is suggested.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the healthcare industry, there are several standards that are often overly broad and vulnerable to local interpretation and application.
“In the healthcare industry, there are several standards that are often overly broad and vulnerable to local interpretation and application [36].”
From Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 96
- Authors
- Shull, J. G.
- Affiliations
- Bellvitge University Hospital (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Shull, Jessica Germaine
- Venue
- JMIR Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2019-11-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e12712
- ISSN
- 2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6913749
- OpenAlex
- W2972075936
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 10.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Universitat de Barcelona
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Keywords
- electronic health records, interoperability, digital health systems, health data integration, barriers to interoperability, national health policy, best practices, population health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review