Exchange and formats
What we review
- FHIR readiness
- IHE readiness
- APIs and integration
- Medical imaging and DICOM
Reference standards
HL7® FHIR®HL7® v2IHEDICOM®
Interoperability Services
Interoperability and Digital Maturity Assessment
We analyze your organization's architecture, standards, systems, information flows and capabilities to identify interoperability gaps and build a roadmap toward a connected, secure, standards-based health ecosystem.
Purpose of the service
From an interoperability diagnosis to an executable roadmap.
Meddyg offers a comprehensive assessment service for health organizations that need to know how prepared they are to exchange clinical information with other systems, organizations, HIE networks or national digital health ecosystems. It is not an isolated technical audit, and it is not a certification: it is a consulting process in which we analyze the current state, identify gaps, determine risks and dependencies, assess interoperability maturity, propose a target architecture, define priorities and build a concrete evolution roadmap.
Scope
What do we assess?
An interoperability assessment covers technical, semantic, organizational and governance dimensions — not just connectivity.
Architecture and integration
Clinical systems, repositories, APIs, interfaces, middleware, point-to-point integrations and the existing architecture, considering modern patterns for health information exchange.
Interoperability standards
How the organization uses — or could adopt — standards such as HL7 FHIR, HL7 v2, openEHR, IHE, OpenHIE and DICOM.
Semantic interoperability
Use, quality and governance of clinical terminologies and classifications such as SNOMED CT, LOINC, ICD-10, ICD-11, MedDRA and WHODrug. Sharing data does not necessarily mean sharing meaning.
Identity and directories
How patients, practitioners, organizations, facilities, services and endpoints are identified and related to each other.
Security and trust
Authentication, authorization, consent management, digital signature, traceability and audit mechanisms — the foundation of trust between participants.
Data governance
Data ownership and accountability, exchange rules, policies, quality and onboarding of new participants — including how all of it fits digital public infrastructure approaches for health. Interoperability is not only a technology problem.
Methodology
How we run the assessment
A structured five-stage process, adapted to the size and context of each organization.
01
Discovery
Sessions with technical, clinical and business teams to identify objectives, participating systems and priority use cases.
02
Baseline
Documentation of the current state.
- Systems
- Integrations
- APIs and interfaces
- Information flows
- Standards in use
- Data models
- Actors
03
Analysis
Technical and functional interoperability assessment.
- Gaps
- Dependencies
- Risks
- Duplication
- Proprietary integrations
- Semantic issues
04
Target architecture
A conceptual proposal for how the ecosystem should evolve, with the components that apply to each case — not every organization needs all of them.
- FHIR / openEHR repositories
- API gateways
- HIE
- MPI
- Terminology services
- Consent services
- Identity providers
- Audit services
- Directories
05
Roadmap
Prioritization of initiatives by impact, complexity, risk, dependencies, relative cost and strategic value.
Coverage
Assessment areas and standards
One reference framework, applied at different depths depending on each organization's reality. Each dimension groups what we review and the standards we consider.
Semantics and data models
What we review
- Semantic interoperability
- Clinical terminologies
- Clinical information models
- Data quality
Reference standards
SNOMED CT®LOINC®ICD-10 / ICD-11MedDRAWHODrugopenEHR
Identity, security and trust
What we review
- Patient identity
- Practitioner identity
- Organization directories
- Security and authorization
- Consent
- Digital signature and non-repudiation
- Audit and traceability
Reference standards
SMART on FHIR®OAuth 2.0OpenID Connect
Architecture and governance
What we review
- HIE architecture
- Digital public infrastructure
- Data governance
Reference standards
OpenHIEDPI-H
We work with these standards as a technical reference framework — we do not certify formal conformance with any of these organizations.
Maturity model
An indicative scale to locate the starting point
Meddyg's own methodology for discussing interoperability maturity in concrete terms rather than in the abstract.
- Level 1
Fragmented
Isolated integrations, manual processes and heavy reliance on proprietary interfaces.
- Level 2
Integrated
Exchange mechanisms exist, but system-specific integrations still dominate.
- Level 3
Standardized
The organization starts using common standards, APIs and shared information models.
- Level 4
Interoperable
Systems can exchange information using defined technical and semantic standards.
- Level 5
Ecosystem
The organization takes part in health information exchange ecosystems in a governed, secure and scalable way.
These levels are indicative and part of Meddyg's own assessment methodology — they do not correspond to a certification or to a third-party model.
Results
What your organization receives
Every assessment closes with a set of concrete deliverables, not just a descriptive report.
Diagnostic report
Executive summary and detailed assessment of the current state.
Interoperability map
A view of systems, actors, interfaces and the main information flows.
Gap analysis
Differences between the current architecture and the target state.
Risk matrix
Main technical, organizational and governance risks.
Target architecture
A conceptual proposal to evolve the interoperability platform.
Roadmap
Prioritized initiatives and dependencies to move forward step by step.
Approach
Interoperability beyond APIs
Connecting two systems does not necessarily mean achieving interoperability. An interoperable architecture requires participants to share not only transport mechanisms, but also information models, identifiers, terminologies, security rules and governance agreements. At Meddyg we assess these dimensions as a whole, to help organizations build sustainable interoperability capabilities.
Governance
Semantics
Syntax
Security
Technology
Profile
Who is this service for?
The scope is the same; what changes is the starting point and the priorities of each type of organization.
Hospitals and hospital networks
Several clinical systems and point-to-point integrations accumulated over time. The assessment sets out what to integrate first and how to reach a consolidated view of the patient.
Laboratories and imaging centers
Results and studies that have to reach external systems. We review identifiers, codes and DICOM/FHIR flows so that delivery is consistent and can be automated.
Health software vendors
Products that need to expose FHIR APIs and prove integration capability to customers and public tenders. We define what to build and in what order.
Public institutions and national projects
Initiatives that must define architecture, identifiers and exchange rules before scaling, with approaches such as DPI-H and OpenHIE. The assessment delivers the baseline and the roadmap.
Payers and insurers
Clinical and administrative exchange with multiple providers. We review security, consent and traceability for each flow.
HIE networks
Ecosystems that onboard new participants. We assess governance, directories and trust mechanisms so that onboarding is repeatable.
Self-assessment
Do any of these problems sound familiar?
We have too many point-to-point integrations and every change breaks something.
Each new integration takes months and costs more than the previous one.
We are not clear on which interoperability architecture we need.
We have APIs, but not an interoperability strategy.
We want to adopt FHIR and don't know where to start.
Every system identifies the same patient differently.
There is no single source of truth for practitioners, facilities and services.
We share data, but each system uses different codes and terminologies.
We want to adopt SNOMED CT or LOINC and don't know how to implement them or who maintains them.
Every project defines its own clinical data model.
Every system solves authentication and authorization its own way.
We need digital signature on clinical documents and don't know how to integrate it.
We cannot demonstrate who accessed which clinical information, and when.
We need to connect to an HIE or to a national digital health ecosystem.
If any of these situations describes your organization, an interoperability assessment can help define the starting point.
Do you know how prepared your organization is to interoperate?
Identify gaps, risks and priorities before starting new integrations or digital transformation projects.