Introduction > Reliability of Fields

Reliability of Fields

Redox connects to dozens of different of healthcare products. We use HL7 standards, vendor APIs, and even less formatted data like CSV to bring data onto the Redox network. Not all data is created equally. To help set expectations we came up with a framework for how “reliable” fields are. In other words, how often we see a particular field given the diversity of our connections.

Reliability In The Redox Documentation

Our documentation uses badges for each field:

  • Reliable Expect this field to be present for every message from every health system (> 90%)
  • Probable Expect this field to be present for most messages from most health systems (> 50%)
  • Possible This field may be present for some messages from some health systems (< 50%)

When we first started Redox, we used our experience to set these properties. Today, they are based on actual data from our diverse network. In the future we look forward to breaking this data down into actual percentages – updated in real time, and sliced by EHR, Event Type, and other interesting properties.

Why Fields Are Less Reliable And What To Do About It

If a field is listed as less than “Reliable” – it’s not the end of the world. The core problem is that data sources have little reason to share the most by default:

  1. A core tenet of security in healthcare is to only send what is necessary. In the event of a breach, you’ve let less information slip. There is usually no objection to adding data, but it’s not on by default.
  2. Healthcare puts a premium on things working. For that reason, backwards compatibility is core principle of integration developers. Data points may be available with new versions of software, but they are off by default.

Work with your Redox team to make sure your data requirements are clear, and we’ll do all we can to get the data added to your connections.