| Literature DB >> 33218022 |
Charalampos Stamatellis1, Pavlos Papadopoulos1, Nikolaos Pitropakis1,2, Sokratis Katsikas3, William J Buchanan1.
Abstract
Electronic health record (EHR) management systems require the adoption of effective technologies when health information is being exchanged. Current management approaches often face risks that may expose medical record storage solutions to common security attack vectors. However, healthcare-oriented blockchain solutions can provide a decentralized, anonymous and secure EHR handling approach. This paper presents PREHEALTH, a privacy-preserving EHR management solution that uses distributed ledger technology and an Identity Mixer (Idemix). The paper describes a proof-of-concept implementation that uses the Hyperledger Fabric's permissioned blockchain framework. The proposed solution is able to store patient records effectively whilst providing anonymity and unlinkability. Experimental performance evaluation results demonstrate the scheme's efficiency and feasibility for real-world scale deployment.Entities:
Keywords: Hyperledger Fabric; blockchain; distributed ledger technology; electronic health records management; healthcare; privacy-preserving
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33218022 PMCID: PMC7698751 DOI: 10.3390/s20226587
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Privacy-Preserving Healthcare overview.
Comparison of related proposals.
| Method | Technology | Access | Verifiability | Privacy-Preserving | GDPR | Performance/Scalability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | AC Scheme | Private | Private |
|
|
|
| [ | Ethereum | Private | Public |
|
|
|
| [ | Ethereum | Private | Public |
|
|
|
| [ | Ethereum | Open | Public/Private |
|
|
|
| [ | Bitcoin/Agnostic | Open | Public |
|
|
|
| [ | Agnostic | Open | Private |
|
|
|
| [ | Peer-to-peer | Private | Private |
|
|
|
| [ | HLF | Private | Private |
|
|
|
| [ | HLF | Private | Private |
|
|
|
| Our work | HLF | Private | Private |
|
|
|
Figure 2Proof-of-concept implementation overview.
Figure 3PREHEALTH overview.
Query time measurements in milliseconds (ms) per number of entries.
| Number of Records: | 10 | 100 | 1000 | 10,000 | 100,000 | 1,000,000 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PREHEALTH | Read Data Time | 183 ms | 183 ms | 183 ms | 183 ms | 183 ms | 183 ms |
| Write Data Time | 58 ms | 58 ms | 58 ms | 58 ms | 58 ms | 58 ms | |
| PostgresSQL Database | Read Data Time | 1.73 ms | 1.79 ms | 2.38 ms | 8.76 ms | 43.52 ms | 136.19 ms |
| Write Data Time | 4.32 ms | 4.48 ms | 4.47 ms | 4.37 ms | 4.39 ms | 4.45 ms | |
| MedRec—Azaria et al. [ | Read Data Time | 177 ms | 186 ms | 194 ms | 199 ms | 205 ms | 210 ms |
| Write Data Time | 81.5 ms | 86.9 ms | 79.6 ms | 71.6 ms | 63.2 ms | 79.6 ms | |
| Blockstack—Ali et al. [ | Read Data Time | 360 ms | 360 ms | 360 ms | 360 ms | 360 ms | 360 ms |
| Write Data Time | 530 ms | 530 ms | 530 ms | 530 ms | 530 ms | 530 ms | |
Figure 4Read records transactions overhead.
Average CPU (%) performance of each blockchain peer per number of electronic health records.
| PREHEALTH Organizations | PREHEALTH Peers | Number of Records | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1000 | 10,000 | 100,000 | |||
| Healthcenter | Peer 0 | Read Queries | 7.6% | 28.7% | 29% |
| Write Queries | 6.7% | 10.3% | 15.4% | ||
| Peer 1 | Read Queries | 5.1% | 21.8% | 21.7% | |
| Write Queries | 4.9% | 6.7% | 4.2% | ||
| Peer 2 | Read Queries | 4.9% | 23.3% | 22.2% | |
| Write Queries | 5.4% | 6.4% | 4.3% | ||
| Hospital | Peer 0 | Read Queries | 8.3% | 29.4% | 32.3% |
| Write Queries | 9.3% | 11.2% | 13.9% | ||
| Peer 1 | Read Queries | 5.1% | 22.7% | 23.2% | |
| Write Queries | 5.4% | 6.4% | 4.3% | ||
| Peer 2 | Read Queries | 5.4% | 20.7% | 18.7% | |
| Write Queries | 4.9% | 6.6% | 4.2% | ||
| PublicHealth | Peer 0 | Read Queries | 7.6% | 30.5% | 30.3% |
| Write Queries | 11.4% | 12.8% | 8.2% | ||
| Peer 1 | Read Queries | 4.8% | 22% | 20.1% | |
| Write Queries | 5.3% | 6.8% | 4% | ||
| Peer 2 | Read Queries | 5.1% | 23.4% | 22% | |
| Write Queries | 4.7% | 6.6% | 4% | ||
Figure 5(a) Read queries workflow on 1000 Records. (b) Write queries workflow on 1000 Records. (c) Read queries workflow on 10,000 Records. (d) Write queries workflow on 10,000 Records. (e) Read queries workflow on 100,000 Records. (f) Write queries workflow on 100,000 Records. CPU Usage (%) of blockchain peers during workflow.