Archetype Development Process: A Case Study of Support Interoperability Among Electronic Health Record in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil

  • Thais Abreu Maia
  • Cristiana Fernandes De Muylder
  • Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 745)

Abstract

The interoperability among electronic medical records requires a standard that guarantees the semantic persistency of information. The study proposes an archetypes development process to support the Electronic Health Record (EHR) in the State of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. It was case study with a qualitative analysis of applied nature with methodological exploratory purposes. For this, there was a literature review on archetypes development processes. The selected studies had their processes compared. Then, an own archetypes development process was proposed, also considering the legislation of Unified Health System in Brazil (SUS). The process was tested in a proof of concept, a practical test on a theoretical proposal. The proposed governance model was considered adequate for the organization of EHR at SUS in MG. It is expected that with its effective implementation, the proposed process support the interoperability among clinical data arising from different levels of health care services.

Keywords

Electronic Health Record Archetype SUS Archetype governance process Archetype development process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks for the support of FAPEMIG, Minas Gerais State Health Secretary, CNPq and CAPES.

References

  1. 1.
    Brazil: Constitution. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Senado, Brasilia (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazil: Law n. 8080 of 19 September 1990. Regulates the conditions for promotion, protection and recovery of health, the organization and functioning of the corresponding services and other measures. Diário Oficial da União (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazil: Law n. 8142 of 28 December 1990. Provides for community participation in the management of the Unified Health System (SUS) and on intergovernmental transfers of financial resources in health and other matters. Diário Oficial da União (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paim, J., et al.: The Brazilian health system: history, advances, and challenges. Lancet 377(9779), 1178–1197 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ENSP/Fiocruz: Project Final Report: Global Disease Burden of Minas Gerais, 2005. Belo Horizonte (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shortell, S.M., et al.: Remaking Health Care in America: Building Organized Delivery Systems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castells, M.: The Networked Society, vol. 1, 4 edn. Paz e Terra, São Paulo (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendes, E.V.: The Health Care Networks. School of Public Health of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pan American Health Organization: Integrated networks of health services: concepts, policy options and a roadmap for its implementation in the Americas. HSS/PAHO/WHO, Washington (2008). (Series Renewing Primary Health Care in the Americas)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization: Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemics, 2008 - The MPOWER package. WHO, Geneva (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/TR 20514: 2005: Health informatics - Electronic health record - Definition, scope, and context (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos, M.R.: Electronic health record system based on ISO 13606: applications in the State Health Secretariat of Minas Gerais 2011. 178 f. Thesis (Doctorate in Information Science). School of Information Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 13606-1:2008: Health Informatics, Electronic Health Record Communication, Part 1: Reference Model (2008a)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 13606-2: 2008: Health Informatics, Electronic Health Record Communication, Part 2: Archetype Interchange Specification (2008b)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    World Health Organization: Building foundations for eHealth: progress of member states: report of the WHO global observatory for eHealth. WHO, Geneva (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization: Terms of reference for designing the requirements of the health information system of Maputo Central Hospital and preparation of the tender specifications - Technical Report. WHO (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E-Health strategy for Brazil, Brazil. Ministry of Health, Secretary of Strategic and Participative Management, SUS Department of Informatics. Brasília (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mota, F.R.L.: Electronic patient medical records and the information literacy process. In: Enc. Bibli., R. Elect. Bibliotecon. Ci. Inf., Florianópolis, 22 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minas Gerais Homepage. http://sres.saude.mg.gov.br. Accessed 27 Apr 2013
  20. 20.
    Conde, A.M.: Towards best practice in the archetype development process. Dissertation (Master in Health Informatics). Department of Information Science, University of Dublin, Dublin (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Späth, M.B., Grimson, J.: Applying the archetype approach to the database of a biobank information management system. Int. J. Med. Inf. 80(3), 205–226 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moresi, E. (Org.): Metodologia da pesquisa. Brasília (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maia, T.A.: Health electronic registration archetypes governance process in Minas Gerais: a case study. 90 f. Dissertation (Master in Information Systems and Knowledge Management). Faculty of Business Sciences, FUMEC University, Belo Horizonte (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trigo, J.D., et al.: On the seamless, harmonized use of ISO/IEEE11073 and openEHR. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf. 18(3), 872–884 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menárguez-Tortosa, M., Fernández-Breis, J.T.: OWL-based reasoning methods for validating archetypes. J. Biomed. Inf. 46(2), 304–317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Archives Council - Electronic Documents Technical Chamber, Brazil. e-ARQ Brazil: Model of Requirements for Information Systems in Archival Document Management. Arquivo Nacional, Rio de Janeiro (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leslie, H.: Archetype authoring, review and publication. OpenEHR Foundation (2008). http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/Archetype+authoring%2C+review+and+publication. Accessed 11 Aug 2014
  28. 28.
    National Council of Health Secretaries, Brazil: Improvement in Management of Primary Health Care: Project AGAP/ National Council of Health Secretaries. CONASS, Brasilia (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Santos, M.R., et al.: Health information exchange for continuity of maternal and neonatal care supporting: a proof-of-concept based on ISO standard. Appl. Clin. Inf. 8(4), 1082–1094 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reis, Z.S.N., et al.: Electronic systems interoperability study: based on the interchange of hospital obstetrical information. In: 2015 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/cbms.2015.57
  31. 31.
    Dogac, A., et al.: Key issues of technical interoperability solutions in eHealth and the RIDE project (2007). http://www.ehealthnews.eu/images/stories/pdf/ride.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  32. 32.
    European Commission: Semantic interoperability for better health and safer healthcare. Deployment and research roadmap for Europe (2009).  https://doi.org/10.2759/38514

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Planning AdvisoryState Health Secretariat of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Business Graduate ProgramFUMEC UniversityBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Center of Health InformaticsFederal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)Belo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations