Journal of Health Care and Prevention
Open Access

Clinical data; Interoperability; Data exchange; Blockchain; Application programming interface

Introduction

The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, earmarked nearly $30 billion in cash to incentivize Electronic Health Record (EHR) adoption via US healthcare providers, generally thru the “Meaningful Use” (MU) application [1]. As an end result of this effort, vendors and health facility use of EHRs has improved dramatically—while solely 9% of non-federal acute care hospitals had a fundamental EHR in 2008, 96% had an EHR by using 2015 (with fundamental EHR described as a set of 10 core measures along with clinician notes, remedy lists, and trouble lists, amongst others) [2]. Unfortunately, whilst the digitization of fitness files has truly increased, sharing digital fitness statistics between unique hospitals and companies has lagged at the back of EHR adoption, for severa reasons, which includes technical, operational, and privacy-related issues [4].

Interoperability in healthcare is regularly centered round statistics alternate between commercial enterprise entities—for example, a couple of health facility structures thru a state-wide Health Information Exchange (HIE) . However, there has been a latest push toward patient-driven interoperability, in which fitness statistics trade is patient-mediated and patient-driven. Notable current efforts in this region encompass the twenty first Century Cures Act's (21CCA) emphasis on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) , the API requirement in MU stage 3, and current bulletins assisting open APIs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [5] and from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The shift closer to patient-centered interoperability is an essential fashion that has the viable to lay new groundwork for information sharing in healthcare. Patient-centered interoperability, however, brings with it new challenges and necessities round safety and privacy, technology, incentives, and governance that have to be addressed for this kind of information sharing to be successful at scale, and many of these challenges are nevertheless now not solved for ordinary interoperability [6-8]. Thus, it is gorgeous to appear for novel or disruptive interventions that should be relevant in facilitating the shift to patient-centered interoperability. Such interventions should ease the anxiety between the blessings of facts liquidity—clinical, research, operational—and the tremendous limitations to interoperability that outline the panorama of fitness statistics sharing.

Discussion

In the rapidly evolving landscape of healthcare, interoperability stands as a critical challenge. The ability of different healthcare systems and providers to seamlessly exchange and use patient data is essential for efficient, high-quality care delivery. However, achieving interoperability has proven to be complex, hindered by disparate systems, data silos, and privacy concerns. Blockchain technology has emerged as a promising solution to address these challenges, offering a decentralized and secure framework for data management. In this article, we explore how blockchain technology is enabling the shift to patient-driven interoperability in healthcare.

The challenge of interoperability in healthcare: Interoperability in healthcare refers to the ability of different information systems and applications to communicate, exchange data, and use the information exchanged. Despite the proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange (HIE) systems, achieving seamless interoperability remains an elusive goal. Healthcare data is often fragmented across various systems, making it difficult for providers to access complete patient records when needed. This fragmentation not only hampers care coordination but also contributes to inefficiencies and medical errors.

Moreover, traditional approaches to data exchange face significant challenges, including data security and privacy concerns. Centralized systems are vulnerable to cyber-attacks and data breaches, putting sensitive patient information at risk. Additionally, patients have limited control over their own health data, leading to issues of consent and data ownership.

Blockchain technology: a solution for interoperability: Blockchain technology, best known as the underlying technology behind crypto currencies like Bitcoin, offers a novel approach to data management and exchange. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized, distributed ledger that records transactions across a network of computers. Each transaction, or block, is cryptographically linked to the previous one, creating a secure and immutable record of data.

In healthcare, blockchain technology holds immense promise for enabling interoperability while ensuring data security and privacy. By decentralizing data storage and enabling peer-to-peer transactions, blockchain can facilitate seamless data exchange among different healthcare entities, including providers, insurers, and patients. Moreover, blockchain's cryptographic features ensure that data remains tamper-proof and verifiable, enhancing trust and transparency in the system.

Empowering patients through self-sovereign identity: One of the key benefits of blockchain technology in healthcare is its potential to empower patients with greater control over their own health data. With blockchain-based systems, patients can maintain a self-sovereign identity, meaning they have the ultimate authority over who can access their health information and for what purposes. This shift towards patient-driven interoperability puts individuals at the center of their care, allowing them to securely share their data with healthcare providers, researchers, and other relevant stakeholders.

Furthermore, blockchain technology enables patients to monetize their health data by participating in data marketplaces or clinical research studies. Through secure smart contracts, patients can grant temporary access to their data in exchange for compensation, thus creating new opportunities for data-driven innovation while preserving privacy and consent.

Use cases and implementation challenges: Several real-world applications demonstrate the potential of blockchain technology to transform healthcare interoperability. For instance, MediBloc, a blockchain-based healthcare information platform, allows patients to aggregate and share their medical records securely with multiple providers. Similarly, Solve. Care leverages blockchain to streamline administrative processes and improve care coordination across healthcare networks. However, despite its promise, the widespread adoption of blockchain technology in healthcare faces several challenges. Technical hurdles, such as scalability and interoperability with existing systems, must be addressed to ensure seamless integration. Moreover, regulatory and legal frameworks need to evolve to accommodate the unique characteristics of blockchain-based solutions, including data privacy and liability issues [9-15].

Conclusion

In conclusion, blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize healthcare interoperability by empowering patients with greater control over their health data. By decentralizing data management and ensuring security and privacy through cryptographic techniques, blockchain enables seamless data exchange among different healthcare stakeholders. As the healthcare industry continues to embrace digital transformation, blockchain technology will play a pivotal role in enabling the shift to patient-driven interoperability, ultimately improving the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of healthcare services.

Acknowledgment

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Rim D, Wallace LA, Nabinger S, Persily A (2012) Reduction of exposure to ultrafine particles by kitchen exhaust hoods: The effects of exhaust flow rates, particle size, and burner position. Sci Total Environ. 432: 350-56. 

Google Scholar, Cross ref

2. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL (2017) Pollutant concentrations and emission rates from natural gas cooking burners without and with range hood exhaust in nine California homes. Build Environ. 43:3235–42.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

3. WHO (2005) Air Quality Guidelines - Global update 2005.
4. Kim H, Kang K, Kim T (2018) Measurement of particulate matter (PM2.5) and health risk assessment of cooking-generated particles in the kitchen and living rooms of apartment houses.  Sustainability 10: 843. 

Google Scholar, Cross ref

5. Liu Q, Son YJ, Li L, Wood N, Senerat AM, et al. (2022) Healthy home interventions: Distribution of PM2.5 emitted during cooking in residential settings. Build Environ 207: 108448. 

Google Scholar, Cross ref

6. O’Leary C, Jones B, Hall I (2018) An intervention study of PM2.5 concentrations measured in domestic kitchens. AIVC 2018: Smart Ventilation for Buildings. At: Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France. 

Indexed at, Google Scholar,    

7. O’Leary C, De Kluizenaar Y, Jacobs P, Borsboom W, Hall I, et al. (2019) Investigating measurements of fine particle (PM2.5) emissions from the cooking of meals and mitigating exposure using a cooker hood. Indoor Air 29(3): 423-438. 

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

8. Jacobs P, Cornelissen E (2017) Efficiency of recirculation hoods with regard to PM2.5 and NO2. Healthy Buildings 2017 Europe. At: Lublin, Poland.

Google Scholar,

9. He C, Morawska L, Hitchins J, Gilbert D (2004) Contribution from indoor sources to particle number and massconcentrations in residential houses. Atmos Environ 38(21): 3405-3415. 

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

10. Dobbin NA, Sun L, Wallace L, Kulka R, You H, et al. (2018) The benefit of kitchen exhaust fan use after cooking - An experimental assessment. Build Environ 135: 286-296. 

Google Scholar, Cross ref

11. Goldberg M, Burnett R, Bailar J, Brook J, Bonvalot Y, et al. (2001) The association between daily mortality and ambient air particle pollution in Montreal, Quebec 1. Nonaccidental mortality. Environ Res 86: 12–25. 

Indexed at, Cross ref

12. Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Mack W, Beckerman B, Labree L, et al. (2005) Ambient air pollution and atherosclerosis in Los Angeles. Environ. Health Perspect 113: 201-206.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref 

13. He C, Morawska L, Hitchins J, Gilbert D (2004) Contribution from indoor sources to particle number and massconcentrations in residential houses. Atmos Environ 38(21): 3405-3415. 

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref

14. Dobbin NA, Sun L, Wallace L, Kulka R, You H, et al. (2018) The benefit of kitchen exhaust fan use after cooking - An experimental assessment. Build Environ 135: 286-296. 

Google Scholar, Cross ref

15. Kang K, Kim H, Kim DD, Lee YG, Kim T (2019) Characteristics of cooking-generated PM10 and PM2.5 in residential buildings with different cooking and ventilation types. Sci Total Environ 668: 56-66. 

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross ref