1.
Service Oriented Architecture
Deserves Service Oriented Data
Monolithic databases are just as bad as monolithic
applications - how can data make a difference?
By Shahid N. Shah, CEO

2.
NETSPECTIVE
Who is Shahid?
•
•
•
•
20+ years of software engineering and multidiscipline complex IT implementations (Gov.,
defense, health, finance, insurance)
12+ years of healthcare IT and medical
devices experience (blog at
http://healthcareguy.com)
15+ years of technology management
experience (government, non-profit,
commercial)
10+ years as architect, engineer, and
implementation manager on various EMR
and EHR initiatives (commercial and nonprofit)
www.netspective.com
Author of Chapter 13, “You’re
the CIO of your Own Office”
3

3.
When does data matter?
Only when we use it.
www.netspective.com
4

4.
When will we use the data?
When we can trust it.
When we can access it.
www.netspective.com
5

5.
When will we trust the data?
When it doesn’t “suck”. 
www.netspective.com
6

6.
How do we know data doesn’t “suck”?
When it’s “actionable” – or probably
when we can use it to make decisions
based on it (e.g. for jobs to be done,
workflow, etc.).
www.netspective.com
7

7.
Can’t I just wait to use data
until it doesn’t suck?
Nope.
www.netspective.com
8

8.
What are we supposed to do?
Treat data like code.
Fix broken windows.
www.netspective.com
9

9.
Unused data never gets better.
Iterate your way to better
data by forcing its use.
www.netspective.com
10

10.
NETSPECTIVE
Application focus is biggest mistake
Application-focused IT instead of Data-focused IT is causing business problems.
Silos of information exist across
groups (duplication, little sharing)
Clinical
Apps
Billing
Apps
Lab
Apps
Other
Apps
Healthcare Provider Systems
Patient
Apps
Partner Systems
Poor data integration across
application bases
www.netspective.com
11

11.
NETSPECTIVE
NEJM believes doctors are trapped
It is a widely accepted myth that medicine requires
complex, highly specialized information-technology (IT)
systems.
This myth continues to justify soaring IT costs,
burdensome physician workloads, and stagnation in
innovation — while doctors become increasingly bound
to documentation and communication products that are
functionally decades behind those they use in their
“civilian” life.
New England Journal of Medicine “Escaping the EHR Trap - The Future of Health IT”, June 2012
www.netspective.com
12

12.
NETSPECTIVE
Real world requirement: Reduce heart failure readmissions
Allocating scarce resources in real-time to reduce heart
failure readmissions: a prospective, controlled study
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2013/07/31/bmjqs-2013-001901.full
“This study provides preliminary evidence that technology
platforms that allow for automated EMR data extraction, case
identification and risk stratification may help potentiate the effect
of known readmission reduction strategies, in particular those that
emphasize intensive and early post-discharge outpatient contact.”
www.netspective.com
13

13.
NETSPECTIVE
Tech required for move from FFS to ACOs
Integrated and aggregated data is the only way to get to ACOs and PCMHs
The business needs
• Quality and performance
metrics
• Patient stratification
• Care coordination
• Population management
• Surveys and other directfrom-patient data collection
• Evidence-based surveillance
www.netspective.com
The technology strategy
• Aggregated patient registries
• Data warehouse / repository
• Rules engines
• Complex event processing (CEP)
• Expert systems
• Reporting tools
• Dashboarding engines
• Remote monitoring
• Social engagement portal for
patient/family
14

14.
NETSPECTIVE
The Strategy: Modernize Integration
Need to get existing applications to share data through modern integration
techniques including minimal meta data.
Clinical
Apps
NCI
App
Billing
Apps
Lab
Other
Apps
Apps
NEI
App
Healthcare Provider Systems
Patient
Apps
NHLBI
App
Partner Systems
Master Data Management, Entity Resolution, and Data Integration
Improved integration by services
that can communicate between applications
www.netspective.com
15

15.
NETSPECTIVE
Common approach, low data interop
Feature X
Feature X
Feature Y
Feature Y
Feature Z
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Application A
Application B
Copy features and enhance (everything is separate)
Feature X
Feature X
Feature Y
Feature Z
Feature Z
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Application A
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Application B
Connect to directly to existing data, but copy features and enhance
www.netspective.com
16

16.
NETSPECTIVE
Sophisticated, better data interop
Feature X
Feature X
Feature Y
Feature Y
APIs
Feature Z
REST
SOAP, RMI
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Application B
Application A
Create API between applications, integrate data, create new data
Feature X
Feature X
Feature Z
Feature Y
SOA
WOA
Feature Z
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Application A
Presentation
Functionality
Data
Services
Application B
Create common services and have all applications use them
www.netspective.com
17

17.
NETSPECTIVE
What users want vs. what they’re offered
Data visualization requires integration and aggregation and then homogenization
What’s being offered to users
www.netspective.com
What users really want
18

18.
NETSPECTIVE
The myth of mobility in healthcare
Sexy but wrong: Device-centric closed systems
www.netspective.com
Dull but right: Workflow-centric open solutions
19

19.
NETSPECTIVE
The myth of med device data interop
Serial
Converter
Device
USB
Converter
DDS
www.netspective.com
MQTT
Concentrator
REST
SOAP
AMQP
Local
Network
XMPP
WCTP
Gateway to
EHR
SNMP
SMTP
Cloud EHR
MLLP
20

20.
Fix broken windows by using service oriented data
Treat data as code

21.
NETSPECTIVE
Architecture transitions
Prevalent healthcare industry architectures
Mainframes
Client/Server
EDI
Data-driven
Architecture
(DDA)
DDS
www.netspective.com
Web 1.0
HL7
X.12
Event-driven
Architecture
(EDA)
MQTT
SOAP
AMQP
Service-oriented
Architecture
(SOA)
MLLP
Web-oriented
Architecture
(WOA)
XMPP
WCTP
SNMP
REST
Web 2.0 & APIs
SMTP
MLLP
22

22.
NETSPECTIVE
Data attributes fix broken windows
Provenance /
Source
Ownership
Steward
Units of
Measure
Location
Device
Confidence /
Probability
Subject area /
Classification
Confidentiality
Privacy
Creation User /
Org
Transformed?
Analyzed?
Interpreted?
Quality Metrics
Curated?
Revisions?
Combinable /
Aggregatable?
www.netspective.com
23

23.
NETSPECTIVE
Monolithic Apps Approach
Workstation
Application Server (AS)
Themes
Browser
Server Pages
Views
Drupal CMS
Custom App
Monolithic MVC
RDBMS Server
Modules
Workflow
Models
User Tables
Data Tables
Domain
Tables
Blob Tables
Controllers
• All views, controllers, models maintained on the server side
• All security and data translation done on the server and sent to the
client
www.netspective.com
• Custom IAM
• Data only available to AS
• Lots of FK constraints couple
tables
24

24.
NETSPECTIVE
Well intentioned SOA
Workstation
Application Server (AS)
API
Browser
Pages
Service 1
Service 2
RDBMS Server
Support
Workflow
User Tables
Data Tables
Domain Tables
Widgets
Service 3
Support
Blob Tables
Controllers
www.netspective.com
25

25.
Source: http://www.sun.com/products/soa/benefits.jsp
www.netspective.com
26

26.
Modern Microapps and Services Approach
Browser Accessible
Bootstrap
Backplane
SAML
Identity
Manager
oData
LDIF
Domain
JSON
Domain
oData
RDFa
HTML5 DA
Services
NoSQL
Services
Bootstrap
AngularJS
oData
Patient
Services
Limited FK
Constraints
Analytics
Services
www.netspective.com
Micro Apps
Services
Rich client only
or tiny server
frameworks
(Mojo, Rack, etc.)
oData
Bootstrap
AngularJS
Backplane
SQLV
RDBMS
DDS
Device
RDFa
HTML5 Data Attrs
Widgets
Patient
RDBMS
ETL
No Direct Table
Access
Separate Schemas
No FK Constraints
Dashboard
LDAP
oAuth
SQL/Cube
RDFa
HTML5 Data Attrs
Third Party
oData
Reporting
Apps
ElasticSearch
Search
Service
syslog
iCal
Log/Monitor
Service
CalDAV
Service
Bootstrap
Backplane
oData
Doc/Blob
Service
Rules
Service
oData
XACML
27

27.
NETSPECTIVE
Move to service-oriented (de-identifiable) data
Don’t assume all your data has to go into a giant data warehouse
Old way to architect:
Monolithic RDBMS-based data warehouse
Better way to architect:
Service-oriented databases on RDBMS/NoSQL
The centralized clinical data warehouse (CDW)
model, where a massive multi-year project
creates a monolithic relational database that all
analytics will run off was fine when retrospective
reporting is what defined analytics. This old
architecture won’t work in modern predictive
analytics and mobile-centric requirements.
• Drive transactional ACID-based data
requirements to RDBMS and consider columnstores, document-stores, and network-stores for
other kinds of data
• Break relationships between data and store
lookup, transactional, predictive, scoring, risk
strat, trial associated, retrospective, identity,
mortality ratios, and other types of data based on
their usage criteria not developer convenience
• Use translucent encryption and auto-deidentification of data to make it more useful
without further processing
• Design for decentralized sync’ing of data (e.g.
mobile, etc.) not centralized ETL
www.netspective.com
28

28.
NETSPECTIVE
An example of structuring data for analysis
Preparing data is important
Hard to secure data structures
Easier to secure data structures
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-ind-ehr/
www.netspective.com
29

29.
NETSPECTIVE
Industry-specific formats aren’t always necessary
Reliance on heavyweight industry-specific formats instead of lightweight micro formats is bad
HL7 and X.12 aren’t the only formats
Consider industry-neutral protocols
The general assumption is that
formats like HL7, CCD, and X.12 are
the only ways to do data integration
in healthcare but of course that’s
not quite true.
•
•
•
•
www.netspective.com
Consider identity exchange
protocols like SAML for integration
of user profile data and even for
exchange of patient demographics
and related profile information.
Consider iCalendar/ICS publishing
and subscribing for schedule data.
Consider microformats like FOAF
and similar formats from
schema.org.
Consider semantic data formats
like RDF, RDFa, and related family.
30

30.
NETSPECTIVE
Don’t assume your EHR will manage your data
The EHR can not be the center of the healthcare data ecosystem
• Most non-open-source
EHR solutions are
designed to put data in
but not get data out
• Never build your data
integration strategy with
the EHR in the center,
create it using the EHR as
a first-class citizen
Why EHRs are not (yet) disruptive
http://www.christenseninstitute.org/why-ehrs-are-not-yet-disruptive/
www.netspective.com
31

31.
NETSPECTIVE
Encourage clinical “tinkering” and “hacking”
It’s ok to not know the answer in advance
• Clinicians usually go
into medicine because
they’re problem solvers
• Today’s permissionsoriented culture now
prevents “playing” with
data and discovering
solutions
www.netspective.com
32

32.
NETSPECTIVE
Promote “Outside-in” architecture
Think about clinical and
hospital operations and
processes as a collection
of business capabilities or
services that can be
delivered across
organizations.
www.netspective.com
33

33.
NETSPECTIVE
Focus on the real customer
Inside-out focus
IT
Personnel
Outside-in focus
Internal
business
users and
HCPs
HCP and
Staff
Evaluators
External
HCPs
Patients
Sophisticated and
more agile data focus
Unsophisticated and
less agile data focus
HCPs = healthcare providers
www.netspective.com
34

34.
NETSPECTIVE
Implement industry-neutral ICAM
Implement shared identities, single sign on (SSO), neutral authentication and authorization
Proprietary identity is hurting us
•
•
Most health IT systems create their own
custom identity, credentialing, and access
management (ICAM) in an opaque part of
a proprietary database.
We’re waiting for solutions from health IT
vendors but free or commercial industryneutral solutions are much better and
future proof.
www.netspective.com
Identity exchange is possible
• Follow National Strategy for Trusted Identities
in Cyberspace (NSTIC)
• Use open identity exchange protocols such as
SAML, OpenID, and Oauth
• Use open roles and permissions-management
protocols, such as XACML
• Consider open source tools such as OpenAM,
Apache Directory, OpenLDAP Shibboleth, or
,
commercial vendors.
• Externalize attribute-based access control
(ABAC) and role-based access control (RBAC)
from clinical systems into enterprise systems
like Active Directory or LDAP
.
35

35.
NETSPECTIVE
Pushing data is more expensive than pulling it
We focus more on "pushing" versus "pulling" data than is warranted early in projects
Old way to architect:
“What data can you send me?” (push)
Better way to architect:
“What data can I publish safely?” (pull)
The "push" model, where the system that
contains the data is responsible for sending the
data to all those that are interested (or to some
central provider, such as a health information
exchange or HL7 router) shouldn’t be the only
model used for data integration.
• Implement FHIR or syndicated Atom-like feeds
(which could contain HL7 or other formats).
• Data holders should allow secure authenticated
subscriptions to their data and not worry about
direct coupling with other apps.
• Consider the Open Data Protocol (oData).
• Enable auditing of protected health information
by logging data transfers through use of syslog
and other reliable methods.
• Enable proper access control rules expressed in
standards like XACML.
• Consider Direct for connectivity if you can’t get
away from ‘push’.
www.netspective.com
36

36.
NETSPECTIVE
Tag all app data using semantic markup
When data is not tagged using semantic markup, it's not securable or shareable by default
Legacy systems trap valuable data
Semantic markup and tagging is easy
In many existing contracts, the
vendors of systems that house the
data also ‘own’ the data and it can’t
be easily liberated because the
vendors of the systems actively
prevent it from being shared or are
just too busy to liberate the data.
• One easy way to create semantically
meaningful and easier to share and
secure patient data is to have all
HTML tags be generated with
companion RDFa or HTML5 Data
Attributes using industry-neutral
schemas and microformats similar to
the ones defined at Schema.org.
• Google's recent implementation of
its Knowledge Graph is a great
example of the utility of this
semantic mapping approach.
www.netspective.com
37

37.
NETSPECTIVE
Produce data in search-friendly manner
Produce HTML, JavaScript and other data in a security- and integration-friendly approach
Proprietary data formats limit findability
Search engines are great integrators
• Legacy applications only present
through text or windowed
interfaces that can be “scraped”.
• Web-based applications present
HTML, JavaScript, images, and
other assets but aren’t search
engine friendly.
• Most users need access to
information trapped in existing
applications but sometimes they
don’t need must more than access
that a search engine could easily
provide.
• Assume that all pages in an
application, especial web
applications, will be “ingested” by
a securable, protectable, search
engine that can act as the first
method of integration.
www.netspective.com
38

38.
NETSPECTIVE
Rely first on open source, then proprietary
“Free” is not as important as open source, you should pay for software but require openness
Healthcare fears open source
Open source can save health IT
• Only the government spends more per
user on antiquated software than we do
in healthcare.
• There is a general fear that open source
means unsupported software or lower
quality solutions or unwanted security
breaches.
• Other industries save billions by using
open source.
• Commercial vendors give better pricing,
service, and support when they know
they are competing with open source.
• Open source is sometimes more secure,
higher quality, and better supported
than commercial equivalents.
• Don’t dismiss open source, consider it
the default choice and select commercial
alternatives when they are known to be
better.
www.netspective.com
39

39.
Visit
http://www.netspective.com
http://www.healthcareguy.com
E-mail shahid.shah@netspective.com
Follow @ShahidNShah
Call 202-713-5409
Thank You

40.
NETSPECTIVE
Abstract
Service Oriented Architecture Requires Service Oriented Data
Centralized, monolithic databases primarily built using relational approaches have ruled for decades; they’ve given us
tremendous advances such as vertically scaled business-critical transactional systems and web applications. The next
generation of microapps, microservices, and web widgets demand a scale that vertical scale application-centric
relational databases are having difficulty with so we need to move to a more service-oriented database approach in
which even small services like those that service patients in a patient portal or specific modules of EHRs can and
should have their own databases.
This talk will discuss the idea of service-focused databases and how they differ from application-centric databases;
using this new approach allows faster delivery of applications, less coupling, and better scalability. Healthcare and
biomedical databases are notoriously complex and no single database technology can serve its needs so we need a
more service-oriented approach to database design.
You’ll learn how to choose the right database technology for each service, how to model service-oriented databases
differently than application-oriented ones, and how to keep service databases running smoothly.
www.netspective.com
41