A Nordic reference architecture for Personal Connected Health and Care Presentation of version 1

What is personal connected health and why does it depend on standards? Agenda What is personal connected health and why does it depend on standards? Why coordinate standards and architecture across the Nordics? Vendor comments to version one Some thoughts on next steps Q&A

The reality without standards – citizen perspective At the home of the Citizen Health Care Home Care Home care tele health solution Diabetes tele health solution Geriatric tele health solution

Standards simplify consolidation in the home setting Health Care At the home of the Citizen Diabetes tele health solution Geriatric tele health solution Home Care Home care tele health solution

The reality without standards - healthcare professional Health or home Care Electronic health record At the home of the Citizen KOL tele care solution

A shared set of standards reduces the amount of double registration Health or home Care Electronic health record At Home of the Citizen KOL tele care solution

The reality without standards - market/vendor perspective Diabetes tele care solution Health or home Care At the home of the Citizen € Electronic health record system vendor A vendor has to invest in integrations specific to each customer - 4 customers means 4 times the cost. And we all know who pays the bill! € € €

Standards reduce cost for actors on the Nordic e-health market Diabetes tele care cloud solution Health or home Care At the home of the Citizen € Electronic health record system vendor Using standards, One integration fits all customers - 4 customers shares the cost of 1 integration.

Requires coordinated standards selection Vendor 2 Vendor 4 Vendor 1 Vendor 3 At the home of the Citizen Coordinated standards selections

Coordinated Nordic standards selection means higher impact on standard evolution

The collaboration

Functional scope of version 1

Towards a Common Nordic Language for Telehealth Architecture ?

Prioritization and alignment

Request for market comments Conducted in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden Is the purpose of the reference architecture of relevance to you? Yes (with comments) Does the document give valuable guidance regarding the level of alignment in terms of standards selections across the Nordics? Are the country-specific sections of value? Are the country-specific sections at the right level of detail and scope? Yes  Is the level of alignment (structure, content, format) of the country specific sections purposeful? Additional comments and propositions for further development? Extensive comments (summarized on next slide)

Comments and propositions for further development A common nordic reference architecture is important and all vendors give good feedback on the intention and work in general The PCH solutions need integration with core backend services (such as EHR) They request more detailed description of security, architecture, storage etc. The perspective of the municipalities need to be addressed in future version It should be noted if and how this cooperation relates to legal issues, i.e. MDR or GDPR Sharing collected data back to patients health tools is missing

Thoughts on next steps Role of national actors? Role of industry? Contradictory needs: broaden scope vs deepen scope and add detail Vendors need further details (which would be best addressed outside the reference architecture in different SDOs PCHA, HL7, IHE) How to deliver true interoperability without the details? We need to evaluate if more formal collaboration and resources should be allocated

Meet us at the Inera booth! Questions? Comments? Meet us at the Inera booth! Thursday, April 27th between 9.20-9.40 Thor Schliemann Lars Kristian Roland Johan Eltes