1. Rex E. Gantenbein PhD, Senior Member IEEE Center for Rural Health Research and Education University of Wyoming

2. 2 Centralized Data Management Expensive to maintain – Availability depends on central system Complex to ensure timely updates Requires all participants to use compatible EHRs – Alternative is “interface engine” Requires ID number for all individuals Complicates interoperability beyond state/region

3. 3 Federated Data Management “Network of networks” – Cross-state interoperability scales up – Record locator can use public information Local data is stored locally – Accessed only when needed for exchange – Providers/consumers determine what’s released – Data is as up to date as possible – Failure of a single system doesn’t affect others

4. Implementing a Federated Model Web services support a lightweight mechanism for exchanging information – Support distributing information in a variety of formats – Minimize the amount of maintenance to an entity’s interface when others are added – Scale well when new systems are connected XML is used to describe a class of a data object and behavior of a program – Uses tags to surround the data to define and group data – Readable by both humans and computers

5. Implementing a Federated Model Web Service Description Language – Describes the functions available and their interfaces – Describes the parameters that the functions are expecting as well as the return types – File is usually put on a UDDI Directory Server advertising the service Web service runs on an accessible server – Service accepts a request for information and returns the requested information – Messages are formatted according to the description file

6. Challenges to Interoperability Defining an industry-wide standardized interface (HL7?) Developing translation mechanisms for every platform to/from standardized interface “Intelligent” patient identification scheme based on public information

7. Comments/Questions? rex@uwyo.edurex@uwyo.edu http://www.uwyo.edu/rexhttp://www.uwyo.edu/rex