A Requirement Engineering Framework for Electronic Data Sharing of Health Care Data Between Organizations

  • Xia Liu
  • Liam Peyton
  • Craig Kuziemsky
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 26)


Health care is increasingly provided to citizens by a network of collaboration that includes multiple providers and locations. Typically, that collaboration is on an ad-hoc basis via phone calls, faxes, and paper based documentation. Internet and wireless technologies provide an opportunity to improve this situation via electronic data sharing. These new technologies make possible new ways of working and collaboration but it can be difficult for health care organizations to understand how to use the new technologies while still ensuring that their policies and objectives are being met. It is also important to have a systematic approach to validate that e-health processes deliver the performance improvements that are expected. Using a case study of a palliative care patient receiving home care from a team of collaborating health organizations, we introduce a framework based on requirements engineering. Key concerns and objectives are identified and modeled (privacy, security, quality of care, and timeliness of service). And, then, proposed business processes which use new technologies are modeled in terms of these concerns and objectives to assess their impact and ensure that electronic data sharing is well regulated.


Requirements Engineering User Requirements Notation health care data sharing privacy quality of care 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kuziemsky, C.: Information Technology in Palliative Care, Working Paper, Action for Health Project. University of Victoria (July 2004), (accessed, February 2009)
  2. 2.
    Ash, J.S., Berg, M., Coiera, E.: Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11(2), 104–112 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alvarez, G., Coiera, E.: Interdisciplinary communication: An uncharted source of medical error? Journal of Critical Care 21, 236–242 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stead, W.W., Kelly, B.J., Kolodnder, R.M.: Achievable Steps Toward Building a National Health Information Infrastructure in the United States. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12, 113–120 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    PHIPA, Government of Ontario: Personal Health Information Protection Act (2004), (accessed, January 2009)
  6. 6.
    PIPEDA, Government of Canada, Health Information Custodians in the Province of Ontario Exemption Order (2005), (accessed January, 2009)
  7. 7.
    European Union, Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications. European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, (2002), (accessed, January 2009)
  8. 8.
    HIPPA, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Medical Privacy - National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information (1996), (accessed, January 2009)
  9. 9.
    Darimont, R., Lemoine, M.: Goal-oriented Analysis of Regulations. In: International Workshop on Regulations Modelling and their Verification & Validation (REMO2V 2006). Presses Universitaires de Namur, Luxemburg (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    He, Q., Otto, P., Ant´on, A.I., Jones, L.: Ensuring compliance between policies, requirements and software design: A case study. In: IWIA 2006: Proc. Fourth IEEE Int. Workshop on Information Assurance, Washington, USA, pp. 79–92. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: Designing Information Systems in Social Context: A Goal and Scenario Modelling Approach. Info. Systems 29(2), 187–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A Framework for Tracking Legal Compliance in Health Care. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ITU-T, Recommendation Z.150 (02/03): User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language requirements and framework, Geneva, Switzerland, 200337 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weiss, M., Amyot, D.: Business Process Modeling with URN. International Journal of E-Business Research 1(3), 63–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amyot, D.: Introduction to the User Requirements Notation: Learning by Example. Computer Networks 42(3), 285–301 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mussbacher, G.: Evolving Use Case Maps as a Scenario and Workflow Description Language. In: 10th Workshop of Requirement Engineering (WER 2007), Toronto, Canada, May 2007, pp. 56–67 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roy, J.-F., Kealey, J., Amyot, D.: Towards Integrated Tool Support for the User Requirements Notation. In: Gotzhein, R., Reed, R. (eds.) SAM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4320, pp. 198–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kealey, J., Kim, Y., Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: Integrating an Eclipse-Based Scenario Modeling Environment with a Requirements Management System. In: 2006 IEEE Canadian Conf. on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE 2006), Ottawa, Canada, pp. 2432–2435 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cummings, I.: The interdisciplinary team. In: Dovle, D., Hanks, C.W.C., MacDonald, N. (eds.) Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 2nd edn., pp. 19–30. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuziemsky, C.: Palliative Healthcare Patient Scenario v1.0 - July 2008 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xia Liu
    • 1
  • Liam Peyton
    • 1
  • Craig Kuziemsky
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations