Skip to main content

The big battle: Best of breed vs One stop shop

The world of economics has decided on this debate a long time ago: monopolies are bad, diversity is good. No matter what a monopoly promises, you can rest assure that over time the lack of competition will cause prices to go up and quality to go down.

When it comes to healthcare IT, however, there is one unique factor that flips the coin – interoperability. Despite various attempts the healthcare industry has yet to solve the interoperability challenge in a satisfactory manner which will enable a full continuum of care across different health information systems within a health delivery organization.
Taking a common scenario of prescribing a medication order in theatres using a surgical system to be later administered in a ward requires significant investment to achieve, even using the modern Fast Health Interoperability Resource (FHIR) protocol. The investment required to streamline the data flow across systems raise in an exponential order with every new system that is thrown to the mix. Very quickly the development and maintenance cost of a best-of-breed organization can spear out of control.



The benefits of a best-of-breed strategy are clear both in functional and financial terms but so are the obstacles: managing multiple vendor relationships, maintaining a workforce with organizational memory and technical skills. The interoperability challenge however makes the best-of-breed a viable alternative only for large and wealthy organizations with a "development shop" mentality.
One of the big benefits of a one-stop shop solution is ensuring seamless integration.
Smaller organizations are ,therefore, left to the mercy of the big monopolies, or worst, adopt what I call a bits & bites strategy, which means buy the best (or cheapest) product for every division without a coherent strategic approach, and not bother at all with interoperability.

In practice the situation is not dichotomic as I paint it and every organization is positioned somewhere on the best-of-breed – one-box spectrum.  Statistics provided by Digital Health Intelligence showed that the majority of acute NHS trusts in England ,for example, took a best of breed approach to IT, however it is safe to assume that none or poor integration exists between those systems.

The healthcare IT industry is paying a heavy price, literally, for the inability to solve the interoperability challenges, and awaits for new overarching interoperability model to emerge to disrupt the current status.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FHIR Status Check

 More than 2 years have past since I wrote my article  on the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard and it’s time to do a quick status check and revisit the predictions I made back then. The FHIR standard continues the strong trajectory of adoption and is now used across the globe. The application programming interface (i.e. the FHIR API) is available in most major EHR systems today. According to the US Office of the National Coordinator Health Information Technology an estimated 85% of hospitals have FHIR in their systems. The NHS has been quick to adopt FHIR and the adoption curve in the UK is high. The NPfIT (NHS Care Record Service) HL7 V3 interfaces are being redeveloped in FHIR®, and new NHS specifications such as the CareConnect standard for secured Transfer of Care  are being specified in FHIR® by default. Despite the industry enthusiasm about the potential of FHIR still the old and faithful HL7 v2 remains the predominant interoperability standard in use t

Home grown and die slow systems

The atmosphere got tensed as the meeting went on. We were all started feeling a bit uncomfortable. The meeting took place at headquarters of one of the prestige hospitals in the US. A hospital which constantly ranked in the top 10 best hospitals in the world. A drop of sweat sprout on the brow of the IT executive which was leading the meeting. The participants nodded their heads as they realized that despite the massive investments in developing their home grown systems over the years they are lacking some basic features which typically found in commercially available products, and many of the modules in used are becoming old and need to be replaced. That same realization repeated itself in similar discussions I had with other health organizations around the globe which took the "home grown" path. It seems there was a paradox between how wealthy is the organization and how poor its IT systems are. Selecting a commercially available product is a frustrating task. Typic

Hospital CXO - A new well deserve seat at the executive table

I once asked the CEO of a large hospital what will be the main KPI to measure how well the hospital is doing. The CEO immediate response was that the best indicator would be how satisfy the patients are. In a stressful and overloaded environment such as a hospital, it is easy to focus on the disease and forget about the patient. A chief experience officers (CXO), or other similar titled leaders, is a new member in a hospital C-suite. The role of a CXOs have gained scope and respect in the C-suite as studies show how experience affects all aspects of care. There is a growing body of evidence supporting that the association between better patient experience and health care quality. For example, a study found that a higher CMS star rating was associated with lower patient mortality and readmission's.  One of the drivers accelerating the adoption was the US government decision to start mandate measuring patient’s perception of their care and tied reimbursement to those scores. Beyond t