Designing Interoperable Health Care Services Based on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources: Literature Review.

Background: With the advent of the digital economy and the aging population, the demand for diversified health care services and innovative care delivery models has been overwhelming. This trend has accelerated the urgency to implement effective and efficient data exchange and service interoperability, which underpins coordinated care services among tiered health care institutions, improves the quality of oversight of regulators, and provides vast and comprehensive data collection to support clinical medicine and health economics research, thus improving the overall service quality and patient satisfaction. To meet this demand and facilitate the interoperability of IT systems of stakeholders, after years of preparation, Health Level 7 formally introduced, in 2014, the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard. It has since continued to evolve. FHIR depends on the Implementation Guide (IG) to ensure feasibility and consistency while developing an interoperable health care service. The IG defines rules with associated documentation on how FHIR resources are used to tackle a particular problem. However, a gap remains between IGs and the process of building actual services because IGs are rules without specifying concrete methods, procedures, or tools. Thus, stakeholders may feel it nontrivial to participate in the ecosystem, giving rise to the need for a more actionable practice guideline (PG) for promoting FHIR's fast adoption.

Objective: This study aimed to propose a general FHIR PG to facilitate stakeholders in the health care ecosystem to understand FHIR and quickly develop interoperable health care services.

Methods: We selected a collection of FHIR-related papers about the latest studies or use cases on designing and building FHIR-based interoperable health care services and tagged each use case as belonging to 1 of the 3 dominant innovation feature groups that are also associated with practice stages, that is, data standardization, data management, and data integration. Next, we reviewed each group's detailed process and key techniques to build respective care services and collate a complete FHIR PG. Finally, as an example, we arbitrarily selected a use case outside the scope of the reviewed papers and mapped it back to the FHIR PG to demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of the PG.

Results: The FHIR PG includes 2 core elements: one is a practice design that defines the responsibilities of stakeholders and outlines the complete procedure from data to services, and the other is a development architecture for practice design, which lists the available tools for each practice step and provides direct and actionable recommendations.

Conclusions: The FHIR PG can bridge the gap between IGs and the process of building actual services by proposing actionable methods, procedures, and tools. It assists stakeholders in identifying participants' roles, managing the scope of responsibilities, and developing relevant modules, thus helping promote FHIR-based interoperable health care services.