Hi Jorrit,
It was great to discuss openEHR with you a while ago! You posted some great questions - I imagine others in your position will have similar questions, so I will share our experience from CODE24 here as well - from my perspective as co-owner and architect at CODE24.
a.) What were your expectations and did they come true?
We started to implement the openEHR specification from the ground up when we established CODE24, back in 2011. This decision was already made based on 2â3 years experience with previous projects, with work based on openEHR technology and specifications. Expectations were that openEHR technology would help us to have a clean and a scalable backend system, based on international standards, to allow us rapid developments and integrations with other systems, as well as the ability to (re)use clinical knowledge captured in community-developed information models (archetypes).
Did it come true? Yes, initially it was a big investment to implement all specifications, but we managed eventually and it still serves its purpose, and made us grow into what is now CODE24. It also helped us to be more agile and quickly adopt new technologies like FHIR, or participate in NL-wide projects like MedMij - which we did not envision back in 2011.
We also expected that more vendors would come to understand the openEHR vision concerning health-data and patient centric systems, and that they would join this cause and adopt the specifications. Although this has improved over the years, starting from just a few implementations and vendors to a larger community nowadays, it is a slow process and did not yet come true completely in the way we thought it would 12 years ago.
b.) What expected problems did you run into?
In general, implementing a complex standard such as openEHR requires a certain dedication (focus) and experience. These are hard to gain directly, you need to build them and this requires time and patience - which we knew it upfront.
On the technical level, we knew it would be complex to build a query engine that scales enough and also allows the two-level modelling approach of openEHR. But we eventually found an architecture and various indexing and query optimizations that help us with this problem.
Problems around the speed of adoption of openEHR technology were also expected, because youâll need other parties âspeakingâ openEHR for better interoperability - but luckily this is constantly improving, especially lately.
c.) What unexpected problems did you run into?
Over the years we bumped into multiple unexpected problems, but we always found solutions, often provided by the openEHR specifications or technology. We also contributed to the specification, sharing our experiences and findings with the community, and trying to promote it in future releases.
Some of the main unexpected problems were related to integrating and using non-clinical concepts in clinical focused applications: such as demographics or administrative concepts, resources or physical items (for the resource planner), or social care information.
Other problems were related to national standards or regulations that we had to comply with, and they did not go well with international standards - various information models and techniques, care process aspects, etc.
d.) What about performance?
The openEHR specifications do not mandate a specific physical or technical infrastructure, nor a specific implementation design. Therefore, the performance is also subjective to the vendorâs solution and their technology stack.
What we learned over the years is that performance is highly dependent on infrastructure, use cases and work-load, and efficiency of the application layer, or on functional requirements that have been (in)efficiently implemented. In general, from our perspective the performance is good, and we always see possibilities to optimize it even more. We never hear performance complaints from the end-users that work with our system.
e.) How do you perceive your amount of freedom before and after implementing openEHR?
CODE24 can not really answer this question - we donât have a âbeforeâ moment. But we are very happy with the freedom we have now (âafterâ). With the openEHR archetypes and templates we have all the freedom and flexibility we need, and with the openEHR Reference Model we have the solid âtechnical layerâ that we can freely use.
On the other hand, complying with the standard and with internationally published archetypes is sometimes limiting this freedom a bit. But we think it is for a good purpose, namely: interoperability.
f.) Are there any examples of EHR vendors that started implementing openEHR and aborted? What were their primary reasons to do so?
I cannot directly recall such vendors. If there were any, I imagine that the technological complexity may have played a role.
Another reason could have been that their customers were not directly asking for openEHR-based software, so vendors may be tempted to adopt other solutions that better serve their purposes.