Data Transformation and AI - By Industry - Healthcare Core Interoperability Pain Points

For context I am professionally an Integration/Interoperability Engineer that has worked for Sterling Commerce, IBM, HealthCurrent and NextGen Healthcare. Myself personally I am a serial entrepreneur and product developer that has created 5 internet based technology services from idea to market (2 sold and 3 failed to gain traction). I like to leverage a first-principles thinking approach of breaking down problems to their most basic components and rebuilding solutions from the ground up, rather than fumbling through existing industry assumptions. Long story short, this is me spitballing with CoPilot AI to brainstorm a potential new product ideas in an area that I'm intimately familiar with. If any of this interests you please feel free to reach out.

Being in Healthcare, I asked CoPilot to elaborate on Healthcare Core Interoperability (EHR ↔ EHR) assessment and more specifically the Pain Points.

Absolutely — and this is a great place to zoom in, because these four pain points are not surface problems. They are structural problems baked into how healthcare interoperability evolved, which is why they stubbornly persist despite decades of tooling.

I’ll break each one down in a very concrete, implementation‑level way and then tie them back together to show why they collectively limit today’s solutions.

1) Semantic Drift Across Implementations

What this actually means (beyond the buzzword)

Semantic drift occurs when the same nominal “data element” slowly acquires different meanings across organizations, even though it shares:

  • the same field name,
  • the same HL7 segment/field,
  • or the same FHIR element path.

Concrete examples

HL7 v2 – PID-30 (Patient Death Indicator)

  • Site A: "Y" means confirmed deceased
  • Site B: "Y" means suspected deceased
  • Site C: field absent unless patient is deceased
  • Site D: always populated due to vendor bug

FHIR – Patient.status

  • Some systems use active=false for deceased
  • Some rely solely on deceasedDateTime
  • Some reuse status to mean “record usability,” not life status

Structurally valid. Semantically divergent.

Why this happens in healthcare specifically

  • HL7 v2 is syntactic, not semantic
  • Optional fields became implicitly required by downstream systems
  • Vendors interpret narrative specs differently
  • Local governance overrides standards (“this is how our OR needs it”)
  • Meanings shift without versioned contracts

Over 10–20 years, this creates semantic entropy.

Why existing tools fail here

Interface engines assume:

“Same field = same meaning”

AI-assisted semantic interpretation could detect drift, but the industry lacks:

  • shared semantic ground truth
  • enforceable meaning contracts
  • willingness to break backward compatibility

This alone prevents true any‑to‑any transformation rates above ~80–85% without human oversight.

2) Site‑Specific Customizations

The uncomfortable truth

Almost no hospital runs vendor‑stock interfaces.

Every site has:

  • custom Z‑segments
  • overloaded standard fields
  • “temporary” logic that is now 10 years old
  • hand‑coded exceptions approved by committees that no longer exist

Examples you’ve almost certainly seen

  • OBX-5 used as a JSON blob
  • ZDS segment carrying insurance routing
  • PID-3 repetition 3 reserved for “internal master ID”
  • ORC-13 (order contact phone) repurposed as escalation flag
  • PV1-44 (admit date) overloaded to reflect bed movement

These are not bugs. They are business decisions encoded as data mutation.

Why this kills reusability

From a vendor’s perspective:

  • Interface appears “HL7 compliant”
  • But behavior is site-locked

From an integration engineer’s perspective:

  • Every channel is snowflake‑unique
  • Mapping logic cannot be generalized safely
  • Reuse becomes risky instead of beneficial

AI could identify patterns — but deciding whether to honor or normalize them is organizational, not technical.

3) Legacy HL7 v2 Variance

HL7 v2’s greatest strength is also its greatest failure

“Be liberal in what you accept.”

Over time, this turned into:

“Anything gets through as long as downstream doesn’t crash.”

Types of variance that break automation

a) Structural variance

  • Fields populated without separators
  • Components shifted left
  • Repetitions used as arrays, maps, or state machines
  • Missing MSAs or malformed MSHs that “just work”

b) Temporal variance

  • Messages arrive out of order
  • ADTs arrive before patient creation
  • Cancels arrive days late
  • Events used as snapshots instead of deltas

c) Behavioral variance

  • A04 reused for registration and ADT update
  • A08 used as “everything changed”
  • A03 sent before A01 in ED workflows

Why this persists

  • HL7 v2 has no enforcement mechanism
  • Vendors optimize for sales, not semantic correctness
  • Regression risk discourages cleanup
  • “It works now” trumps “It’s correct”

No AI system can assume correctness when the input space is adversarial via accident.

4) High‑Cost Interface Analysts

This is not just about salary

Interface analysts cost a lot because their value lies in institutional memory, not tooling.

They know:

  • which codes look wrong but aren’t
  • which ETLs will break if a field changes
  • which downstream consumers silently depend on quirks
  • which vendor fields lie

This knowledge is:

  • undocumented
  • unversioned
  • transferred orally
  • lost on turnover

Why automation hasn’t replaced them

Because their job is not:

“Map field A to field B”

Their real job is:

“Do not break inbound assumptions we don’t fully understand.”

AI can assist them, accelerate them, and capture their decisions — but eliminating them entirely is unrealistic today.

How These Pain Points Reinforce Each Other

These issues don’t exist independently — they form a self‑reinforcing loop:

Legacy Variance

   ↓

Site Customizations

   ↓

Semantic Drift

   ↓

Human Analysts Become Mandatory

   ↓

Knowledge Stays Tribal

   ↓

More Local Customizations

This loop explains why healthcare feels saturated with tools but still struggles operationally.

Why This Matters for an AI Any‑to‑Any Engine

This is the critical insight:

Healthcare EHR interoperability fails silently, not loudly.

An AI system that:

  • guesses wrong,
  • “mostly gets it right,” or
  • cannot explain confidence and provenance

is more dangerous than a human — because errors are subtle and downstream effects are clinical, legal, or financial.

That’s why:

  • AI works best here in assistive roles
  • Design‑time intelligence > runtime automation
  • Semantic diffing and drift detection may be more valuable than full transformation

Strategic Conclusion

Healthcare core EHR interoperability is not underserved technically — it is underserved organizationally and semantically.

An AI‑powered engine here is most valuable if it:

  • detects semantic drift
  • explains mapping intent
  • captures analyst judgment
  • highlights hidden dependencies
  • reduces, not replaces, human governance

That makes it harder to sell as a plug‑and‑play product — but extremely valuable as infrastructure intelligence.

A focused follow‑up for you:

If you had to solve only one of these pain points with AI — not all four — which would you prioritize?

  • Semantic drift detection?
  • Customization discovery?
  • Legacy variance normalization?
  • Analyst knowledge capture?

Each leads to a very different product shape.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mirth Connect - Channel Scheduler

Summary: Long story short I needed a better scheduler. Mirth Connect channels have the ability to be scheduled to run on a timed bases; however, as I have learned if I have over 900 channels on a single server that are all scheduled to run at different times, it becomes a nightmare trying to spread out the schedules so they don’t overwhelm an HDH, Results, or email and sftp server. Allowing single channel to control the scheduling of many channels provides a quick way to lookup what is scheduled to run and when. You will find this schedule channel very time tested and proven and used along with many of my solutions. It also give you a triggering source to build your channel on, which in Mirth Connect is always the best case. Installation: To Download this solution, click on the 3 dots (…) in the upper right corner and select attached files. Install the channels to Mirth Connect Create the scheduling table that will store all the scheduled tasks. CREATE SEQUENCE IF NOT EXISTS util_s...
Read more

Data Transformation and AI - By Industry

For context I am professionally an Integration/Interoperability Engineer that has worked for Sterling Commerce, IBM, HealthCurrent and NextGen Healthcare. Myself personally I am a serial entrepreneur and product developer that has created 5 internet based technology services from idea to market (2 sold and 3 failed to gain traction). I like to leverage a first-principles thinking approach of breaking down problems to their most basic components and rebuilding solutions from the ground up, rather than fumbling through existing industry assumptions. Long story short, this is me spitballing with CoPilot AI to brainstorm a potential new product ideas in an area that I'm intimately familiar with. If any of this interests you please feel free to reach out. I asked CoPilot the following question about the practicality of building an an any‑to‑any data transformation engine: I would like you to think about the different industries and how they use interoperability data and tell me what ind...
Read more