| Literature DB >> 33003452 |
Omar Gutiérrez1,2, Giordy Romero1, Luis Pérez1, Augusto Salazar1, Marina Charris3, Pedro Wightman1.
Abstract
The current information systems for the registration and control of electronic medical records (EMR) present a series of problems in terms of the fragmentation, security, and privacy of medical information, since each health institution, laboratory, doctor, etc. has its own database and manages its own information, without the intervention of patients. This situation does not favor effective treatment and prevention of diseases for the population, due to potential information loss, misinformation, or data leaks related to a patient, which in turn may imply a direct risk for the individual and high public health costs for governments. One of the proposed solutions to this problem has been the creation of electronic medical record (EMR) systems using blockchain networks; however, most of them do not take into account the occurrence of connectivity failures, such as those found in various developing countries, which can lead to failures in the integrity of the system data. To address these problems, HealthyBlock is presented in this paper as an architecture based on blockchain networks, which proposes a unified electronic medical record system that considers different clinical providers, with resilience in data integrity during connectivity failure and with usability, security, and privacy characteristics. On the basis of the HealthyBlock architecture, a prototype was implemented for the care of patients in a network of hospitals. The results of the evaluation showed high efficiency in keeping the EMRs of patients unified, updated, and secure, regardless of the network clinical provider they consult.Entities:
Keywords: EMR; blockchain; data integrity; electronic medical records; information technology architecture; resilience
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33003452 PMCID: PMC7579627 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Representation of a component.
Figure 2Architecture overview.
Figure 3Interaction cases of the different actors.
Figure 4HealthyBlock architecture—layered viewpoint.
Figure 5Electronic medical record (EMR) components.
Figure 6Security components.
Figure 7Access types.
Figure 8Encryption and synchronization component.
Figure 9Synchronizer buffer.
Figure 10User processes.
Figure 11Permitting processes.
Figure 12EMR processes.
Figure 13Architecture deployment diagram.
Figure 14JMeter distributed configuration.
Experimental parameters.
| Variable | Levels |
|---|---|
| Number of threads (users) | 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 |
| Ramp-up period (seconds) | 60 |
| Same user on each iteration | Yes |
| Duration (seconds) | 300 |
Figure 15Latency results: (a) query latency EMR; (b) insertion latency EMR.
Figure 16Throughput and resilience of the HealthyBlock prototype.
Figure 17Synchronizer resilience time.
Figure 18Resource utilization of the HealthyBlock prototype.
Figure 19Usability survey results.
Figure 20Functionality survey results.
Message HL7.
| Structure ORU-R01 |
|---|
| MSH Message Header (General information about the message) |
| PID Patient Identification (Patient information) |
| [ |
| OBR Observation Requests (Type of request observation) |
| { |
| OBX Observation Results (Results of the requested observation) |
| } |
| ] |
| [ |
| { |
| PV1 Patient Visit (Information about the patient’s visit) |
| NTE Notes and Comments (General information about the visit) |
| } |
| ] |
Activities performed by surveyed individuals.
| Activity | Duration | Type of Interaction |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction with web platform | 20 min | Use the web platform, assuming a certain role: doctor, laboratory, patient |
| Usability survey | 5 min | Answer the survey |
| Functionality survey | 5 min | Answer the survey |
Usability survey and answers.
| No. | Questions | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neither Agree nor Disagree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | It was easy to learn how to use the system. | 10 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 0 |
| 2 | The information provided by the system is easy to understand. | 12 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | The system has all the functionalities and tools that you expected it to have. | 12 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | The organization of the information on the screen is clear. | 13 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | Overall, I am satisfied with how easy the system was to use. | 10 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| 6 | The system interface is nice. | 13 | 13 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | I like to use the system interface. | 14 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | I can effectively perform operations using the system. | 13 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | Finding information or functionality of the system was easy. | 13 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Total ( | 110 | 118 | 51 | 9 | 0 | |
| Percentage (%) | 38 | 41 | 18 | 3 | 0 |
Functionality survey and answers.
| No. | Questions | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neither Agree nor Disagree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | User registration is easy to perform and runs smoothly. | 10 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| 2 | It is easy to log in to the website. | 6 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 0 |
| 3 | The user can see the access control relationships they are in (users with access to the medical record) and these are easily accessible in the interface. | 16 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | The patient can modify permissions to decide who can see and/or modify their medical history in a satisfactory way. | 16 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | The patient can activate the access requests of other users to their medical history (set status on). | 16 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | The patient can view their medical history without problems. | 14 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | The process of using the tool to interact with the system is easy and understandable. | 10 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 0 |
| 8 | The doctor can perform successful patient searches on the system. | 15 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | The doctor can request a medical history from the patient. | 14 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | The doctor can see the list of patient medical records to which they have access. | 11 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | The doctor can see the medical records of the patients according to the level of access they have. | 16 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | The family doctor can see and/or modify the medical history of their patients. | 12 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | The family doctor can manage the medical history of their patients. (change access, change status) | 12 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | The laboratory can perform satisfactory patient searches on the system. | 12 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | The laboratory can make a request for clinical history to the patient. | 14 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | The laboratory can view the list of patient medical records to which it has access. | 13 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | The laboratory with full access can add records to the clinical history of its patients. | 13 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | The laboratory can view patient records on the basis of the level of access it has. | 13 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Total ( | 233 | 231 | 90 | 22 | 0 | |
| Percentage (%) | 40 | 40 | 16 | 4 | 0 |