...
It seems from our reading that the use of HL7 v3 in its base form is too difficult and takes a lot of health informatics experts to specify the messages that are needed. So base HL7 v3 does not seem like the way to go for our use case. FHIR looks like a good option for the future but it is currently too new, the tooling support is poor and fact that it is only now entering its trial use period makes it a poor first choice. This leaves us with profiles HL7 v2 which many people are familiar with and have used with success and IHE profiles (perhaps using HL7 v3 CDA for clinical content). With HL7v2 we will have to profile our own messages to gain semantic interoperability and this can be time consuming and would require end users to know how we profile our HL7v2 but the process is known and building and modifying HL7 v2 message is simple due to the age of the standard. IHE profiles have the benefit of being highly specified so that systems can easily interoperate 'out-of-the-box' however, only specific use cases are profiled and if the data we want to collect falls outside of these profiles then this would not work or would require custom specification.We are currently unsure which of profiled HL7 v2 or IHE profile (XDS with CDA content) would be best for us to use moving forward. Further discussion and understanding of what each one entails is required
The SHR community believes that we should support IHE profiled CDA documents as the primary mechanism for transmitting clinical content due to OpenHIEs involvement with IHE and due to the wide spread use of CDA at the moment. We also believe that HL7 v2 messages should be supported at a base level to allow legacy systems to communicate in this simpler format until such time as they can be upgraded to support CDA documents.