person in green shirt wearing white mask

Accessing the total capacity of electronic health information requires facilitating a smooth experience for healthcare professionals to access healthcare details across apps and platforms. However, data has been confined to proprietary software for many years. Suppliers, payers, and patients frequently reverted to antiquated, time-consuming data-transmitting techniques, such as faxing progress notes or physically transferring paper-based records.

Inception of HL7

The roots of transformation were put over a decade ago. Health Level Seven International (HL7), a non-profit group aimed to set benchmarks for transmitting, consolidating, exchanging, and recovering electronic health records, was created in 1987 by professionals in medical advancements. These days, this organization is a top supplier of specifications for medical information systems’ compatibility.

The HL7 clinical messaging standard greatly aids a secure method of transmitting records and healthcare communications within healthcare facilities. HL7 uses ASCII-based texting to interact across various systems, such as patient management structures, healthcare information mechanisms, EMRs, laboratory data management, and payment processes.

Introduction of FHIR

The Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard was created in 2014 as a potential substitute for HL7 V2, making it easier than ever to provide more opportunities and legacy processes to exchange data. The goal of this initiative is to improve interaction effectiveness and compatibility.

The Introduction of FHIR caused a great deal of misunderstanding in the healthcare sector. Companies using HL7 V2 and other variants wondered what standards to comply with.

This is a concise response: FHIR is regarded as the greatest revolutionary protocol, even if all of these provide compatibility. It uses accessible web protocols and RESTful web applications, which make incorporating various system aspects simpler than earlier benchmarks.

However, HL7 V2 and FHIR implementation are complicated and require specialized knowledge. You can utilize different solutions to subcontract this job because they have already helped many healthcare providers embrace FHIR.

Let’s quickly review FHIR vs HL7.

What Similarities Do HL7 and FHIR Share?

Because Health Level Seven International created both HL7 and FHIR, they can be compared to two siblings.

FHIR utilizes the most current web service standards while combining the greatest elements of HL7 V2, HL7 V3, and CDA. FHIR is built on a flexible system of “resources” that can be assembled to address clinical and organizational issues effectively. They also stand to gain from the expandable feature that streamlines the FHIR standard simple for everybody while being constructed with robust forward/backward interoperability criteria for convenient installation.

With FHIR, all improvements achieved during the HL7 V2, V3, and CDA developmental phases are integrated into larger, more advanced ecosystems. This comprises the launch of the HL7 RIM (Reference Information Model), which, with the publication of HL7 V3, served as the cornerstone for all data modeling. In order to construct a fixed version of healthcare information as seen in the context of HL7, the HL7 task force and HL7 participants agreed on this Reference Information Model.

Key Differences Between HL7 and FHIR

FHIR supports HL7 V2-like communications, but it also offers a variety of methods for simplifying data sharing between structures. The primary distinction between HL7 and FHIR is that, in contrast to HL7 v2, FHIR uses open web applications, including RESTful web services and JSON and RDF data formats. The majority of programmers are already familiar with these systems. Therefore there is less of a period of adjustment than with earlier protocols. Not to forget, the RESTful API method swaps out point-to-point integrations for one-to-many functionality, which greatly simplifies data transmission and cuts down on the time required to integrate the latest data-sharing parties.

The Increased compatibility with numerous different equipment and software, in addition to electronic health record (HER) systems, is a significant advantage of the RESTful strategy. Such as gadgets, portable devices, and phone applications. By incorporating third-party and wearable technology, Folio3 Custom Medical Software Development Company provides Folio3 HER/EMR connection options that enhance HL7 deployment and improve patient and physician encounters.

The fact that HL7 v2 and FHIR still rely on documentation transmission for sharing health information and data is yet another contrast between the different standards. HL7 v2 providers often select a collection of information to send before creating a message to contain that data. Similar to the stable information collected in a PDF, HL7 v2 continues to employ the Consolidated Clinical Document format, from which it is complicated to detach the data and make it functional in any other layout.

The RESTful API also substitutes one-to-many endpoints for point-to-point interfaces, greatly simplifying data sharing and cutting down on time needed to recruit new information-sharing users.

Over earlier protocols, such as the commonly used HL7 V2, the FHIR standard clearly has considerable benefits. Even though the state has mandated the adoption of FHIR, many organizations should be motivated to push along even if they are still debating whether to do so.

Remember that you still have some crucial operational options and possible hurdles to overcome if your organization adopts FHIR. For instance, although FHIR was designed to simplify execution, carrying out an internal FHIR application may still necessitate mastering new expertise.

What Makes FHIR Better than HL7?

For a small percentage of the charge of existing strategies, FHIR design provides a basic package of tools that, alone or in fusion, may be able to address administrative and clinical problems in actual life. Each FHIR source is separated into types and groupings, much like HL7 v2 segments, with each form providing a unique domain layout that can include a compound or primitive content. The sources are XML, Atom, JSON, HTTP, and OAuth-based; these features can be mandatory or discretionary.

The real kicker is that current protocols will not be replaced even as FHIR spreads throughout the healthcare industry. There won’t be a pressing demand to move any of the HL7 interfaces because they will all proceed to be useful.

Developing a cloud-based FHIR service could aid in overcoming uptake barriers. You may speed up procurement, integrate cloud-based services to tailor the execution, and achieve adequate further expansion with the correct cloud implementation, all while keeping expenses in check.