...
Standard | Fit for Purpose | Stewardship | Quality | |||||
Fits | Implementation | Vendor Support | Canadian | SDO | Complexity | Standard | Training, Support and Tooling | |
HL7 FHIR | Under Development | Yes | Yes |
| Draft | |||
AB MR2009 (HL7 v3) | Production | Yes (AB) | Localized |
| High | |||
pan-Canadian MR2009 (HL7 v3) | Production in Canada | Yes | Localized | High | ||||
ON (v3, v2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BC (v3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Architectural Constraints and Considerations | Secondary Benefits | |||||||
Use of HL7v3 conforms with the architectural design of Canada's digital health blueprint. AB MR2009 extends the Canadian specification with the ability to merge and logically delete providers. BC has an implementation that should be described here Ontario has an implementation that should be described here HL7v3 messaging does not provide the means to transmit a the history of changes to a provider records. The PRS XML Messaging specification is proprietary to the registry solution but is shared across several provinces. | Standardizing on MR2009 new FHIR interfaces across EHR applications reduces complexity within the infostructure and for implementers by minimizing variability in models and vocabulary. | |||||||
Recommendation | Supporting Rationale | |||||||
HL7 FHIR | Identify FHIR resources required to implement new interfaces to existing provincial assets to accelerate and ease adoption of content in these Provider Registries. |
...