Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 207 Vues
This whitepaper explores the comparison between HL7 V2 and V3 standards in healthcare information exchange. It delves into the challenges and opportunities of transitioning from V2 to V3, the branding choices involved, and a strategic approach for adoption. The paper outlines the significance of V2 as a legacy system and the advancements offered by V3 in achieving interoperability within healthcare enterprises. It provides insights on how different countries handle the coexistence of V2 and V3 environments and emphasizes the importance of embracing V3 for future-proof healthcare networks. By analyzing the market landscape and adoption trends, it offers a comprehensive positioning strategy for healthcare organizations aiming to leverage the benefits of HL7 V3 in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
E N D
V2 Situational Analysis • Version 2 (V2) of the HL7 standard used in over 90% of American hospitals • Other countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Japan (and very likely others) • Not just an issue for a very limited number of realms – especially if weighed by existing market size for H-IT products
V3 Situational Analysis • Used and necessary especially in the context of community, regional and national health information network initiatives such as NHS Connecting for Health (UK), Health InfoWay (Canada), various European and Asian countries, and many others. • Multi stakeholder environments/Crossing organizational boundaries • (Potential) Standard of choice in • Green-field environments • Realms with centralized decision making bodies
V2 vs. V3 Situational Analysis • V3 not really V2++ • Entirely different paradigm • No straightforward transition path • ROI for “upgrade” not obvious • Mappings and co-existence possible, and often necessary, but not trivial
Brand -Name vs. -Association • Option 1 (Change Brand Name): • From “HL7 V2” to “HL7 Enterprise Edition” • From “HL7 V3” to “HL7 Extended Enterprise Edition” • Problem: Significant name recognition for V2 and V3. May result a lot in additional confusion in the marketplace • Option 2 (Change Brand Association): • V2: Originally designed of the requirements of a single enterprise. HL7’s claim to fame. The legacy work-horse for many early adopters of HC information exchange within the context of a single enterprise. Now superseded by the next generation V3. • V3: Designed for a broad spectrum of requirements. The only internationally accepted, industry strength, standard to achieve interoperability within and across the HC enterprise. The foundational standard of choice for regional, national and trans-national exchange of health information.
V2 to V3 positioning strategy • Migration of existing V2 legacy unlikely to happen rapidly due to cost and unclear ROI • Don’t try to push it. It is a waste of energy • Let “natural” system upgrade cycles take care of it • Sooner or later cost of legacy support will be higher than cost of upgrade • Focus on adoption of V3 in green field environments (esp. emerging economies) and for regional, national and trans-national health information networks • Adoption of V3 in RHIO type environments will create pressure towards transition from V2 to V3 to have a coherent V3 end-to-end environment rather than more costly V2/V3 mixed environments
V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V2 V2 V2 Single Enterprise Yesterday V2 V2 An Enterprise – HC Service Provider (Hospital, Clinic, Physician) Its “business partners” (Payers etc.)
V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V2 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 Today for legacy Environments (degree of V3 adoption varies between deployments) V3 V2 V3 V2 V3 Single Enterprise V2 V3 V3 V2 V2 Single Enterprise V2 V2 V2
V2 to V3 positioning strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3 V3 Today for Green field And transition Target for legacy V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 Single Enterprise V3 V3 V3
V2 to V3 transition strategy(Articulate in Whitepaper) • No more than 4-5 pages. We’ll not talk about the RIM, we’ll not talk about “semantic interoperability”. We focus on what it does for you – not how it does it. “HL7 in a fortune cookie”. • Section 1: Healthcare and Interoperability Standards (Intro) • Section 2: HL7 V2.0 – the original HL7 success story. Position V2.0 as success for early movers way back when, but also as legacy pointing out its short-comings for the 21st century (i.e. HL7 is response to the marketplace and its requirements) • Section 3: HL7 V3.0 (Intro) - The only internationally accepted, industry strength, standard to achieve interoperability within and across the HC enterprise. The foundational standard of choice for regional, national and trans-national exchange of health information. • Section 4: V2.0 and V3.0 mixed environments. How some countries tackle it (e.g. UK, Germany). It is not easy, but it can be done (because it has to be done). • Section 5: V3.0 – the standard of the future. Speak especially to the issues of emerging countries and regional networks. • Section 6: Short summary (V2 was as success and will be around for some time to come, V3 is the next generation).
Branding: In Summary • HL7 V2.0 • An HL7 success story. • Success for early movers, delivered results and has shown the way. • Important existing work-horse on which real-world deployments are based • HL7 V3.0 • Designed for the 21st century (i.e. HL7 is responsive to the marketplace and its requirements) • The only internationally accepted, industry strength, standard to achieve interoperability within and across the HC enterprise. • The foundational standard of choice for regional, national and trans-national exchange of health information.
