Health information systems interoperability maturity
Your health data exchange capability, measured by theme and turned into a roadmap.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Health information systems interoperability maturity
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Health information systems interoperability framework (CI-SIS, HL7 FHIR, IHE profiles) assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
This mechanism (one level, the level above, and the action linking the two) turns an observation into a trajectory.
Are the terminologies used in clinical data exchanges aligned with shared reference frameworks?
- N1
No common reference framework. Each application uses its own labels and codes, with no documented mapping.
- N2
Reference terminologies are used on a few flows, generally lab results. Mappings exist in files maintained by a single person.
- N3
Reference terminologies are applied across the main exchange domains. Mapping tables are documented, shared, and assigned to a named owner.
- N4
Alignment is systematic across all flows. Coding quality is checked, gaps are measured and addressed, and value sets are versioned.
- N5
Value sets follow national updates on an established schedule, with impact assessment before deployment and documented tracking of revisions.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Extract the mapping tables from individual files, publish them in a shared repository with a named owner per domain, and add their review to the quarterly IT committee agenda.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Health systems interoperability is the ability of several systems, within a facility or across actors in a region, to exchange data and use it without loss of meaning. It breaks down into distinct layers. The technical layer covers transport and interfaces. The syntactic layer covers formats: HL7 v2, CDA, FHIR. The semantic layer covers terminologies, LOINC, SNOMED CT, ICD-10, and their associated value sets. The organisational layer covers processes, responsibilities and sharing rules. An organisation can be strong on one and absent on the others.
In practice, governance stumbles on simple questions that remain unanswered in writing. Who holds the map of flows between the patient record, the laboratory, imaging, pharmacy and regional partners, and when was it last updated? Is patient identity qualified against a single reference framework, or does each application maintain its own index? What happens when a vendor changes an interface: is the change tracked, tested, versioned, or discovered in production by a user? These are not purely technical questions, they are questions of data governance.
The context has shifted. FHIR has become the reference exchange format for new projects, coexisting durably with the already deployed HL7 v2 and CDA. National pay-for-use programmes have moved the focus: what matters is no longer whether a connection exists, but the volume of exchanges actually produced and used. The European Health Data Space is also structuring cross-border exchange and secondary data sharing. Confusion persists on the ground: having a connector is not the same as being interoperable. The connector carries the data, semantics give it meaning, and organisation guarantees its use.
A technical compliance audit answers yes or no: the flow conforms to the profile, or it does not. A maturity assessment works differently. It places each theme on a progressive scale, from ad hoc action to governed and continuously improved practice, then names the action that moves the organisation to the next level. This is what makes the gap actionable at board level, and comparable between two facilities or two business units.
In Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and can be adapted. The AI adjusts themes, questions and levels to your scope, whether a regional hospital group, a vendor, or a regional health agency, or builds a variant from your architecture maps and project documents. Once the assessment is complete, it groups the gaps into a prioritised roadmap rather than a flat list of actions.
Reference standard: Health information systems interoperability framework (CI-SIS, HL7 FHIR, IHE profiles)
The themes assessed
Interoperability governance
Existence of a written strategy, roles and responsibilities, a decision committee, alignment with the master plan, and a budget dedicated to interfaces.
Flow mapping and architecture
Inventory of applications and exchanges, description of inbound and outbound flows, upkeep of the map, management of integration points and exchange buses.
Identities and core reference data
Qualified patient identifier, identity management, handling of duplicates and merges, register of professionals and structures, resource directory.
Syntactic interoperability
Formats used, HL7 v2, CDA, FHIR, IHE profiles applied, supported versions, compliance with the volumes of the interoperability framework, handling of vendor-specific variants.
Semantic interoperability
Reference terminologies, LOINC, SNOMED CT, ICD-10, value sets, mapping tables, governance of local coding, quality control of coding.
Security, traceability and data protection
Authentication of systems and people, encryption of exchanges, logging, management of consent and access matrices, compliance with the health data protection framework.
Exchanges with external actors
Connection to core services and regional platforms, secure messaging, exchanges with primary care, social care and laboratories, regional document sharing.
Interface lifecycle
Versioning, test environments, test data sets, acceptance testing before go-live, management of vendor changes, maintained technical documentation.
Monitoring and service quality
Flow monitoring, disruption detection, handling of rejections and queues, volume indicators, recovery time after incidents.
Use and business adoption
Actual use of received data in care pathways, staff training, reporting of pain points, measurement of the clinical value of exchanges.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment lead to certification?
No. Health interoperability relies on frameworks and technical profiles, not on an organisational certification scheme. The assessment measures the maturity of your practices and produces the associated action plan. It usefully prepares for vendor labelling or a technical compliance audit, but does not replace either.
How does this differ from a technical interface audit?
A technical audit checks whether a flow conforms to a profile and concludes with a gap. The assessment places the organisation on a progressive scale, layer by layer, and indicates the action that moves it up a level. It also covers governance, semantics and business use, which a technical audit does not examine.
Do you need to be an architect to answer?
The questions concern management and organisational practices, not integration engine configuration. An IT manager, project lead or data officer can answer them. Collaborative mode allows technical questions to be assigned to the relevant contributor.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version can be completed in a single working session. The full version, in collaborative mode with several contributors, generally takes one to two weeks, most of the time spent gathering input from application and business teams.
Can the framework be adapted to our context?
Yes. Themes, questions and levels can be adjusted, and the AI generates a variant from your architecture documents or programme requirements. A regional hospital group, a vendor and a social care provider do not assess the same objects.
Can several facilities be compared with each other?
Yes. The industrialised assessment applies the same framework across several entities, with a benchmark per theme and a comparison against previous rounds. A cross-cutting roadmap then consolidates the action plans so that no site repeats the same work.
How do you go from the score to a budget?
Each gap becomes a line in the action plan. The service catalogue offers a solution for each line, with its cost, timeframe and expected impact on the score. Decisions are then made on costed trajectories rather than intentions.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up with Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.