Clinical Document Archive

This paper is a manifesto for developing a cloud-native archive for clinical documents as an alternative to large and expensive health information exchanges.

Female doctor reviewing clinical documents on a tablet

Introduction

This paper is a manifesto for developing a cloud-native archive for clinical documents as an alternative to large and expensive health information exchanges.

Many regions currently using HIE technology utilise less than 20% of the profiles offered. The majority sticking mainly to XDS for documents and data sets and XDS-i for images. Yet they are paying for the entire solution; for which use cases can’t be found.

Most suppliers in this space are not cloud-native, meaning the infrastructure they run on can be costly and difficult to maintain.

There is a gap in the market for a document archive solution that focuses on the twenty per cent of functionality that clinicians require. Focusing on their core requirements will deliver a solution at a fraction of the operating cost; allowing health organisations to realise significant benefits.

A product developed using modern software development processes and adopting a cloud-first serverless approach will significantly reduce operating costs. Designed from its inception to leverage new cloud storage options will reduce costs while increasing the resilience and durability of essential clinical data.

I have worked in healthcare for twenty-four years. I’ve helped implement large information exchanges and created software that has produced millions of clinic outcome letters (ALMA). My work in serverless cloud technology is featured on the AWS public sector blog. I know what features clinicians desire from a clinical archive repository, and this system will give them the enhanced experience they deserve.

The intention is to develop this solution openly, publishing the code to GitHub as and when the various components are ready. This paper will be updated with progress notes, architectural decisions and technical specifications as the solution develops.

Goals

The intended goals of the project include:

Pricing Comparisons

Traditional set-ups have monthly operating costs ten times the base-line for this product:

Monthly running costs less than $1,000. Compared to similar architectures which cost over $10,000 per month to keep the lights on.

Progress

Versions