Stream: implementers
Topic: Using FHIR store as a system of Record
Ashley Raiteri (Feb 07 2022 at 16:46):
New Implementer here: We are debating whether to keep data both in our MVC style ORM interfaced Postgres Database and our FHIR Store (we are using a cloud provider), or whether to just use the FHIR store as the system of Record.
Does anyone have any warnings or concerns or success stories with this approach?
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 07 2022 at 18:21):
You might want to ask on the #storage for FHIR stream - though you could get useful answers here too.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 07 2022 at 18:49):
and http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=2776
Craig McClendon (Feb 07 2022 at 20:10):
I interpreted your question a little differently - that you are considering keeping your existing database plus a (3rd party) FHIR server - versus - just having a FHIR server and ditching your existing database.
In general I don't think there are any issues using a FHIR server as your system of record.
But if you need to run any type of advanced queries/analytics against your data, FHIR APIs might not be the best for that. You may desire to have a data set you can query more easily. Different vendors have different options for getting to the underlying data. You may or may not have direct access - in which case export or subscription support may be important.
Paul Church (Feb 07 2022 at 21:13):
I know of GCP customers using FHIR as their system of record. No major warnings that I've heard of. Most would sync the data out to BigQuery for analytics, to replace any use cases where they might have run SQL queries on a traditional database.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
