<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Semantic Interoperability in Healthcare: Challenges and Roadblocks</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Massachusetts Boston</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Boston MA 02125</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>119</fpage>
      <lpage>122</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Semantic Interoperability plays a pivotal role in healthcare organizations enabling ubiquitous forms of knowledge representation. By integrating heterogeneous information, it strives to answer complex queries and pursue information sharing in healthcare. Its absence within and across organizational boundaries, however, impedes the ability to exchange information in a complex network of computerized systems developed by widely different manufacturers. This study aims to stress the need for achieving semantic interoperability and explore the implementation challenges and roadblocks that exceed the technical difficulties and evolves around cultural, social, policy and economic barriers to data sharing.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Healthcare</kwd>
        <kwd>Interoperability</kwd>
        <kwd>Semantics</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Automated data sharing enhances communication among computers and speeds up
response time, which is a requirement for effective healthcare delivery. In healthcare,
data exchange schema and standards allow data sharing across clinicians, lab, hospital,
pharmacy, and patient regardless of the application or application vendor. However, the
absence of interoperability within and across organizational boundaries impedes the
ability to exchange information in a complex network of computerized systems
developed by widely different manufacturers. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers defines interoperability as the “ability of two or more components to exchange
information and to use the information that has been exchanged” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. In medicine,
interoperability enforces the ability to transfer data accurately, effectively, securely and
consistently regardless of information technology systems, software applications, and
networks in various settings. It also facilitates the exchange of information such that
clinical or operational purpose and meaning of the data are preserved and unaltered [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
The latter definition alludes to the ability of the systems to fully participate in a
semantically interoperable environment, which is only possible by adopting standards for
message format as well as the content.
      </p>
      <p>
        There is no shortage of research about standards and their role in facilitating data
exchange in healthcare. The problem is well defined, and standards such as HL7 V 2.x
series offer primary clinical messaging format standards for information exchange
between and across organizations. However, in reality, the implementation of semantic
interoperability has faced challenges and roadblocks that exceed the technical
difficulties and evolves around cultural, social, policy and economic barriers to data sharing.
Dolin and Alschuler [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] state that “challenges to profile-less communication with
today's model and terminology include ambiguities, lack of complete expressivity,
redundant representations that cannot be computationally converted into a common canonical
form, implicit semantics, and a less-than-perfect understanding of context.”
      </p>
      <p>This study aims to stress the need for achieving semantic interoperability to enhance
healthcare delivery and cites the implementation challenges for semantic
interoperability in the healthcare industry. The organization of the paper is as follows: Section 2
describes interoperability in healthcare. Section 3 introduces standards for achieving
Semantic operability in healthcare. Section 4 offers concluding remarks.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Health Information Technology Interoperability</title>
      <p>
        The need for fluent machine-to-machine communication in healthcare is crucial.
However, the accuracy of such communication depends on the ability of different HIT
systems to map different terms to shared semantics, or meaning. The HIMSS has divided
health information technology interoperability into three levels: 1) Foundational; 2)
Structural, and 3) Semantic [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. According to HIMSS, these three levels of
interoperability must be achieved to enforce the data exchange initiatives. Most healthcare
organizations have achieved the first step of foundational interoperability allowing electronic
data exchange in understood formats. An extensive effort is on the horizon to achieve
the next level of structural interoperability to provide the capability for IT systems to
interpret data at field level. To achieve semantic interoperability, which is the highest
and final level, involves the understanding of the meaning of information. Dolin and
Alschuler describe the final step for accurate data exchange as “the ability to import
utterances from another computer without prior negotiation, and have your decision
support, data queries and business rules continue to work reliably against these
utterances.” It is commonly understood that achieving broad-based, scalable and
computable semantic interoperability across multiple domains requires the integration of
multiple standards. However, a problem arises when the sheer number of acronyms become
confusing and overwhelming.
3
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Standards for achieving Semantic</title>
      <p>Clinical-level semantic interoperability is an elusive goal. The semantic component
becomes notoriously difficult to extract when humans create the clinical description and
then share it with a computer. The problem of semantic interoperability occurs when
clinically meaningful data are passed from machine to machine. Standards, like HL7,
are intended to provide solutions at this level using methods for object-oriented
software for a distributed environment. The key problem for developing a standard that
would support interoperability is the boundary between a computer network and human
users that are employing different tools to extract meaning. The challenge is how to
ensure that meaning has not been changed when crossing this boundary. Without
standards based on a common vocabulary, health information system semantic
interoperability remains wishful thinking. Whether semantic interoperability enables a seamless
communication among computers is open to speculation and difficult to answer, but
keeping the discussion alive is a useful undertaking.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>In healthcare; an environment, characterized by large distributed, autonomous, diverse,
and dynamic information sources, access to relevant and accurate information is
becoming increasingly complex. This complexity is intensified by the evolving system,
semantic and structural heterogeneity of these potentially global, cross-disciplinary,
multicultural and rich-media technologies. Solutions to these challenges require
addressing directly a variety of interoperability issues. Information blocking practiced by
some healthcare providers and health IT developers are among other issues that
jeopardize the meaningful use of semantic interoperability. This practice undermines the
overall goal to achieve secure, appropriate and efficient sharing of electronic health
information across the healthcare continuum. Health information exchange
interoperability is a difficult problem that has many aspects: financial, organizational, political,
and technical. Recent studies have attempted to address some of these issues (5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9) and have offered suggestions to optimize healthcare delivery across the board.
From the theoretical point of view, the most difficult problem is the semantic
interoperability of clinical data, which requires either finding a way to translate the natural
language of medicine to computer codes, or changing how doctors communicate their
clinical observations. Either way is far from completion.
5</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>IEEE</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers): Standard Computer Dictionary- A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries (</article-title>
          <year>1990</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jones</surname>
            <given-names>S.C</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Joseph Mcmenamin</surname>
          </string-name>
          J.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kibbe D.C:</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Interoperable Electronic Health Record: Preserving its Promise by Recognizing and Limiting Physician Liability</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Food and Drug Law Journal</source>
          ,
          <volume>63</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>87</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dolin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alschuler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Approaching semantic interoperability in health level seven</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</source>
          ,
          <volume>18</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>99</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>103</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>HIMSS</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Definition of Interoperability." Directors, Board of</article-title>
          .
          <source>Dictionary of Healthcare Information Technology Terms, Acronyms, and Organizations. HIMSS</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          . Website.
          <source>Last accessed November</source>
          <year>2014</year>
          . &lt;www.himss.org&gt;.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Andargoli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scheepers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rajendran</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sohal</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Health information systems evaluation frameworks: A systematic review</article-title>
          .
          <source>International journal of medical informatics</source>
          ,
          <volume>97</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>195</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>209</lpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Christensen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ellingsen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Evaluating model-driven development for large-scale EHRs through the openEHR approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>International journal of medical informatics</source>
          ,
          <volume>89</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>43</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>54</lpage>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Coiera</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ash</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berg</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The unintended consequences of health information technology revisited</article-title>
          .
          <source>Yearbook of medical informatics, (1)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>163</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>169</lpage>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Craig</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kodate</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Understanding the state of health information in Ireland: A qualitative study using a socio-technical approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>International journal of medical informatics</source>
          ,
          <volume>114</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5</lpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yusof</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A case study evaluation of a critical care information system adoption using the socio-technical and fit approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>International journal of medical informatics</source>
          ,
          <volume>84</volume>
          (
          <issue>7</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>486</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>499</lpage>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>