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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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! € € €

8. 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.

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

10. Coordinated Nordic standards selection means higher impact on standard evolution

11. The collaboration

12. Functional scope of version 1

13. Towards a Common Nordic Language for Telehealth Architecture?

14. Prioritization and alignment

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

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