Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 73–85 | Cite as

Interoperable support for collaborative, mobile, and accessible health care

  • Alain Mouttham
  • Craig KuziemskyEmail author
  • Dishant Langayan
  • Liam Peyton
  • Jose Pereira


E-Health systems, through their use of Internet and wireless technologies, offer the possibility of near real-time data integration to support the delivery and management of health care. In practice, the wide range of choice in technologies, vendors, protocols, formats, and information representations can make even simple exchanges of information between systems problematic. Much of the focus on healthcare interoperability has been on resolving interoperability issues of system to system information exchanges. But issues around people to people interactions and people to system interactions are just as important to address from an interoperability point of view. In this paper, we identify interoperability deficiencies in collaborative care delivery and develop a methodology in two parts. In the first part, an ontology is developed to represent collaborative care delivery. In the second part, the ontology is used to design an architecture for interoperable clinical information system design. We then use a case study in palliative care to provide a proof of concept of the methodology. The case study provides an inventory of the interoperability requirements for palliative care and a perspective on the design and implementation of a people oriented clinical information system that supports collaborative health care delivery in palliative care.


Collaborative care delivery Ontology Process interoperability People and process interoperability 



This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant and by a Collaborative Health Research Project grant from CIHR and NSERC (Canada) on Performance Management at the Point of Care.


  1. Accreditation Canada, Hospice, Palliative, and End-of-Life Services Standard, last accessed November, 2010.
  2. Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Poon, E. G., Guappone, K., Campbell, E., & Dykstra, R. H. (2007). The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avison, D., & Young, T. (2007). Time to rethink health care and ICT? Communications of the ACM, 50(6), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson T. (2010). Principles of health interoperability HL7 and SNOMED. Chapter 2: Why interoperability is hard. Springer-Verlag London Limited.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, M., & Toussaint, P. (2003). The mantra of modeling and the forgotten powers of paper: A sociotechnical view on the development of process-oriented ICT in health care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 69, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blobel, B., & Pharow, P. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of EHR approaches. Methods of Information in Medicine, 48(2), 162–169.Google Scholar
  7. Cancer Care Ontario (2009). Palliative care collaborative care plans, Available from, last accessed November, 2010
  8. Carstairs, S. (2005). Still not there—Quality end-of-life care: A progress report, quality end of life care coalition of Canada, Available from last accessed November, 2010.
  9. Choi, B. C. K. (2005). Understanding the basic principles of knowledge translation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(2), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coiera, E. (2004). Four rules for the reinvention of health care. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 328(7449), 1197–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coiera, E., & Hovenga, E. J. S. (2007). Building a sustainable health system. IMIA: yearbook medical informatics, 2(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  12. Demiris, G., Washington, K., Oliver, D. P., & Wittenberg-Lyles, E. (2008). A study of information flow in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22(6), 621–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferris, F., Balfour, H., Bowen, K., Farley, J., Hardwick, M., Lamontagne, C., Lundy, M., Syme, A., & West, P. (2002). A model to guide hospice palliative care: Based on national principles and norms of practice. Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association Ottawa.Google Scholar
  15. Fonseca, F. (2007). The double role of ontologies in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 786–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garde, S., Knaup, P., Hovenga, E. J. S., & Heard, S. (2007). Towards semantic interoperability for electronic health records. Methods of Information in Medicine, 46, 332–343.Google Scholar
  17. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  18. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kalagiakos, P., & Ikonomou, G. (2009). Ubiquitous patient monitoring. Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare, 7(4), 202–213.Google Scholar
  20. Kuziemsky, C. E., Weber-Jahnke, J. H., Lau, F., & Downing, G. M. (2008). An interdisciplinary computer based information tool for palliative severe pain management. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(3), 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Musen, M. A. (2002). Medical informatics: Searching for underlying components. Methods of Information in Medicine, 41(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
  22. Oh, H., Rizo, C., Enkin, M., & Jadad, A. (2005). What is eHealth: A systematic review of published definitions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Park, H. A., & Hardiker, N. (2009). Clinical terminologies: A solution for semantic interoperability. Journal of Korean Society of Medical Informatics, 15(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Pereira J. (2009). Informatics in palliative medicine. In N. I. Cherry, N. N. A. Christakis, M. Fallon, S. Kaasa, R. K. Portenoy, G. Hanks (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine. Oxford University Press (OUP), 4th edition.Google Scholar
  25. Pirnejad, H., Niazkhani, Z., Berg, M., & Bal, R. (2008). Intra-organizational communication in healthcare. Methods of Information in Medicine, 47(4), 336–345.Google Scholar
  26. Schadow, G., Mead, C. N., & Walker, D. M. (2006). The HL7 reference information model under scrutiny. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 124, 151–156.Google Scholar
  27. Shiffman, R. N., Liaw, Y., Brandt, C. A., & Corb, G. J. (1996). Computer-based guideline implementation systems: A systematic review of functionality and effectiveness. Journal American Medical Informatics Association, 6, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Health Organization. Statistical Information System. Geneva (CH): WHO; 2010 [Available from: last accessed November, 2010.
  29. Zhang, S., & Bodenreider, O. (2006). Law and order: Assessing and enforcing compliance with ontological modeling principles in the foundational model of anatomy. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 36, 674–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Mouttham
    • 2
  • Craig Kuziemsky
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dishant Langayan
    • 2
  • Liam Peyton
    • 2
  • Jose Pereira
    • 3
  1. 1.Telfer School of ManagementUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Bruyere Continuing CareOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations