1.
A Nordic reference architecture
for Personal Connected Health
and Care
Presentation of version 1

2.
• What is personal connected health and why does it depend
on standards?
• Why coordinate standards and architecture across the
Nordics?
• Vendor comments to version one
• Some thoughts on next steps
• Q&A
Agenda

3.
The reality without standards – citizen perspective
At the home of the
Citizen
Health Care
Home Care
Home care tele
health solution
Diabetes tele
health solution
Geriatric tele
health solution

4.
Standards simplify consolidation in the home setting
At the home of the
Citizen
Health Care
Home Care
Home care tele
health solution
Diabetes tele
health solution
Geriatric tele
health solution

5.
The reality without standards - healthcare professional
Health or home
Care
Electronic health
record
KOL tele care
solution
At the home of the
Citizen

6.
A shared set of standards reduces the amount of double
registration
Health or home
Care
Electronic health
record
KOL tele care
solution
At Home of the
Citizen

7.
The reality without standards - market/vendor perspective
At the home of the
Citizen
Health or home
Care
Electronic health
record system
vendor
Diabetes tele
care solution
€
€€
€
A vendor has to invest in
integrations specific to
each customer - 4
customers means 4 times
the cost. And we all know
who pays the bill!

8.
Standards reduce cost for actors on the Nordic e-health market
At the home of the
Citizen
Health or home
Care
Electronic health
record system
vendor
Diabetes tele care
cloud solution
€
Using standards, One
integration fits all
customers - 4 customers
shares the cost of 1
integration.

9.
Requires coordinated standards selection
At the home of the
Citizen
Coordinated
standards
selections
Vendor 1Vendor 2
Vendor 3
Vendor 4

10.
Coordinated Nordic standards selection means higher impact on
standard evolution

11.
The collaboration

12.
Functional scope of version 1

13.
Towards a Common Nordic Language for Telehealth Architecture
?

14.
Prioritization and alignment

15.
Request for market comments
• Conducted in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden
• Is the purpose of the reference architecture of relevance to you?
– Yes (with comments)
• Does the document give valuable guidance regarding the level of alignment in terms of standards
selections across the Nordics?
– Yes (with comments)
• Are the country-specific sections of value?
– Yes (with comments)
• Are the country-specific sections at the right level of detail and scope?
– Yes
• Is the level of alignment (structure, content, format) of the country specific sections purposeful?
– Yes
• Additional comments and propositions for further development?
– Extensive comments (summarized on next slide)

16.
Comments and propositions for further development
• A common nordic reference architecture is important and all vendors give good
feedback on the intention and work in general
• The PCH solutions need integration with core backend services (such as EHR)
• They request more detailed description of security, architecture, storage etc.
• The perspective of the municipalities need to be addressed in future version
• It should be noted if and how this cooperation relates to legal issues, i.e. MDR or
GDPR
• Sharing collected data back to patients health tools is missing

17.
Thoughts on next steps
• Role of national actors? Role of industry?
• Contradictory needs: broaden scope vs deepen scope and add detail
• Vendors need further details (which would be best addressed outside the
reference architecture in different SDOs PCHA, HL7, IHE)
• How to deliver true interoperability without the details?
• We need to evaluate if more formal collaboration and resources should be
allocated

18.
Questions? Comments?
Meet us at the Inera booth!
Thursday, April 27th
between 9.20-9.40
Thor Schliemann
Lars Kristian Roland
Johan Eltes