Written by Technical Team | Last updated 17.10.2025 | 14 minute read
The UK has world-class clinical expertise and a unique, cradle-to-grave health record footprint, yet it continues to wrestle with the everyday friction of moving data between settings, sectors and systems. Interoperability is often framed as a technical task—making one database talk to another—but its real purpose is clinical: ensuring that the right information is available, in the right context, to the right person, at the right moment. When clinicians can see a complete medicines list, pathology results and allergies regardless of where they were recorded, care is safer, duplication falls, and precious time is returned to patients and professionals alike. Equally important is the confidence this builds with the public; citizens rightly expect their data to follow them securely across the NHS and social care without having to repeat their story at every doorway.
There is a second dimension to the value case: productivity and system resilience. Integrated data flows support streamlined referrals, shorter lengths of stay and better discharge planning. They enable analytics that can spot people at risk of deterioration earlier and allow commissioners and providers to plan capacity with more precision. In a resource-constrained environment, reducing avoidable repeat tests and manual re-keying of information is not just a quality improvement—it is fiscal responsibility. True interoperability, done well, unlocks a virtuous cycle where improved data quality drives better services, which in turn produces richer data and better outcomes.
Finally, the economic potential of a connected ecosystem is often underestimated. Open, well-documented interfaces level the playing field for SMEs and start-ups to build specialist tools that slot into clinical workflows rather than displacing them. This stimulates competition on usability and clinical outcomes instead of locking customers into monolithic platforms. Countries that have embraced standards-based interoperability have watched a domestic health tech sector flourish; the UK, with its scientific base and progressive regulators, is well placed to do the same if it gets the foundations right.
Many national programmes now anchor their technical approach in modern web-based standards, particularly HL7 FHIR for structured data exchange, OAuth2/OpenID Connect for secure authorisation and authentication, and standard terminologies such as SNOMED CT, LOINC and dm+d for clinical semantics. The lesson for the UK is not merely to “adopt FHIR” but to implement it with discipline: publishing versioned, constraint-based implementation guides; providing a live sandbox with robust test data; and building a conformance regime that blends automated validation with pragmatic clinical safety testing. An API alone rarely guarantees interoperability—agreement on profiling, vocabulary, and workflow is where the hard gains are made.
A second pattern is the decisive embrace of “terminology as a service.” Rather than expecting each vendor to embed its own lookup tables or translation logic, successful countries centralise this capability behind scalable, audited services that expose value sets, concept maps and normalisation utilities through APIs. This ensures that coding is consistent across labs, imaging, pharmacy and primary care, and that analytics teams downstream can trust that “haemoglobin” means the same thing everywhere. For the UK, which already operates national licences for key terminologies, offering production-grade terminology services that are easy to consume would immediately raise the baseline quality of data.
Third, mature ecosystems take a hard look at real-world workflow patterns and design their APIs accordingly. For instance, medication lists are rarely static; they change as patients move between acute, community and primary care. Systems that shine provide event-driven subscriptions—“tell me when this patient’s medicines change”—alongside query APIs. Imaging exchange similarly benefits from asynchronous patterns where large objects move via secure links while the metadata travels in FHIR. The more the API mirrors the way clinicians work, the less brittle the integrations become.
Another repeated lesson is the value of transparent, shared testing assets. National test suites, publicly accessible reference implementations and “known good” sample payloads dramatically reduce integration ambiguity. They also demystify compliance for smaller suppliers who can demonstrate capability once and then reuse that proof with many customers. The UK can accelerate progress by making its test harnesses easily discoverable, routinely updated and friendly to continuous integration pipelines so vendors can validate every code change against national profiles automatically.
Finally, there is the thorny issue of identity. Patient matching and workforce identity are often the hidden blockers of interoperability. Countries that have made strides typically settle on a small set of high-assurance identifiers and then invest in deterministic, well-governed matching services and attribute providers. For staff access, federated identity with role-based controls beats site-specific accounts every time, especially when clinicians move across organisations. The UK has made headway in these areas, but greater consistency—particularly for social care and the independent sector—would reduce friction and support truly joined-up pathways.
Many programmes stumble not on technology but on the “boring but vital” details of governance, funding and accountability. The standout performers build an explicit social contract: they define what data will move, for which purposes, under which safeguards, and with which redress mechanisms. They then communicate this relentlessly in plain language to the public and professionals. The lesson for the UK is clear—trust is earned by clarity. Consent models should be simple to understand, auditable end-to-end, and designed so that patients can see who accessed their data and why. Equally, clinicians deserve confidence that their lawful access will be defended when it is in the patient’s best interests.
Financing models also matter. If integration is funded as sporadic capital projects, it produces bursts of activity followed by decay. Countries that succeed treat interoperability as a national utility with recurrent funding for the shared components—terminology, identity, registries, event brokers—and then tie provider incentives to the actual use of these utilities in care. Instead of paying for interfaces, they reward measurable outcomes: fewer duplicate tests, higher e-prescribing completion, faster discharge summaries reaching GPs. This nudges suppliers and providers to converge on the shared rails because that is where the money flows.
Procurement policy is a powerful lever. When buyers demand open standards, publish the profiles they expect, and require vendors to pass conformance tests as part of contracts, the market adapts. In some systems, “no API, no deal” has become a simple rule of thumb. Beyond technical requirements, savvy purchasers also include commercial terms that prevent punitive interface charges and ensure that data can be exported in open formats at no additional cost. The UK public sector can send an unmistakable signal by embedding these expectations into frameworks and tenders at scale.
There is also governance at the level of architecture choices. Centralised data lakes can enable advanced analytics and population health management, but they must coexist with federated, point-of-care exchanges that keep care flowing when the network hiccups. Thoughtful governance sets limits on when copies of data are made, how long they persist, and who can query them. It also insists on rich metadata—provenance, consent state, and data quality tags—to avoid garbage-in, garbage-out. In practice, the best models layer a common event backbone over existing systems, allowing data to move as notifications and documents in the short term while steadily increasing the proportion of structured, computable exchanges.
Across geographies, three architecture patterns recur in successful programmes. The first is federated health information exchange: data remains with the source system but can be discovered and retrieved by authorised parties through shared directories, registries and consent services. This respects organisational autonomy and reduces the overhead of synchronising large, stale copies. It also aligns with clinical reality—most queries are patient-centric and time-bound, such as pulling a discharge summary or the latest lab panel.
The second pattern is the creation of common utilities that every system can call: terminology and mapping services, master patient index, provider directory, document registries, and consent audit trails. These are built once, governed nationally, and consumed many times. The UK already operates some of these assets but could redouble efforts to make them API-first, well-documented and resilient. The third pattern is event-driven design. Rather than polling for changes, systems emit clinically meaningful events—admission, transfer, discharge, medication issued, referral accepted—which then trigger downstream actions. Events reduce latency, improve data freshness and create a substrate for innovation: a community nurse app can subscribe to “discharge” events in its patch; a research registry can subscribe to “diagnosis recorded” for eligible cohorts. Combining federation, shared utilities and events yields an architecture that is robust, evolvable and hospitable to new entrants.
The UK does not need to start from scratch, but it does need a sharper, delivery-first plan that clinicians and suppliers can rally behind. The first step is to define a minimal, high-value core of transactions that every care setting must support through standard APIs. Start with a handful of use-cases that are clinically obvious and measurable: shared medication lists; allergy and adverse reaction histories; discharge summaries and clinic letters; pathology and imaging reports; booking and referral status; and a small set of key observations and problems that anchor long-term conditions management. Make these profiles precise, publish them openly, and provide a conformance test suite that vendors can run in their own pipelines.
From there, move quickly to production-grade shared utilities. A national terminology service with uptime SLAs, a modern master patient index that exposes probabilistic and deterministic matching with transparent scoring, a provider directory that includes social care and the independent sector, and a consent service that allows patients to set and view preferences are foundational. Wrap these in developer-friendly documentation, examples and a managed onboarding process. Critically, design pricing and service limits so that SMEs can integrate on equal terms with incumbents, and require incumbent platforms to consume the same services rather than hosting bespoke forks.
Culture and incentives should be aligned with the same precision. Clinicians should never be asked to change practice merely to make the data move; the data should move to support current clinical workflows. That means tight EHR integration, context-aware launch, and single sign-on so users do not juggle windows or logins. It also means measuring what matters in the ward and clinic. If the shared medicines list is truly working, pharmacists will spot discrepancies faster, surgical cancellations due to medication issues will fall, and general practice will see fewer queries about post-discharge scripts. Use these outcomes, not abstract adoption metrics, to steer funding and accountability.
The UK can also learn from jurisdictions that embraced “citizen first” features early. Patients value services that meet tangible needs: being able to see hospital letters in a single place, to share a summary with a carer, or to update personal information once and see it flow. Building high-trust, citizen-facing APIs alongside professional ones strengthens the social contract, exposes gaps in data quality sooner, and supports third-sector innovation around self-management, remote monitoring and shared decision-making. The trick is to keep the permissioning granular and the language plain: explain what is shared, with whom, and why.
At the technical level, two additional moves would pay dividends. First, expand event-driven exchange, starting with a small national catalogue of event types with FHIR payloads that suppliers can adopt consistently. This will reduce polling load, cut latency and make it far easier to build responsive, cross-organisational workflows. Second, make testing frictionless. Host a persistent, synthetic national dataset that reflects UK coding practices and realistic clinical journeys—long-term conditions, maternity, frailty, mental health—and let vendors exercise edge cases before they hit production. Include “golden path” examples for complex journeys like elective surgery and cancer pathways where dozens of systems must coordinate.
Any at-scale transformation in the NHS must treat clinical safety and cyber security as first-class citizens. Interoperability can increase the blast radius of an error if not managed carefully. The answer is not to throttle data flows but to embed safety checks where they add the most value. Structured payload validation, unit and contract testing, and pre-deployment clinical safety case assessments reduce risk prior to go-live. In production, anomaly detection across the event stream—spotting sudden spikes in messages, impossible value ranges or unusual access patterns—helps teams intervene early. For cyber, the principle is layered defence: strong identity and access management; encryption in transit and at rest; robust audit; and zero-trust network principles. These are not nice-to-haves; they are the bedrock upon which public trust rests.
In parallel, clinical risk must be actively managed at the human layer. Clear guidance on “break-glass” access, calm and rapid incident response, and non-punitive learning cultures will prevent a single misstep from chilling adoption. The UK has deep experience in clinical risk management standards and should adapt them for API-centric, event-driven systems. That includes articulating where decision support can be acted upon safely, how to present provenance and uncertainty to clinicians, and what to do when data from different sources conflict. The goal is not perfection but a steady, transparent improvement in safety over time.
Interoperability often falters at the seams—not just between primary and secondary care, but between health and social care, mental health services, community providers and the independent sector. The UK can accelerate progress by focusing on these seams explicitly. Include social care providers in provider directories, enable them to consume and contribute to shared care records with appropriate safeguards, and recognise that their software landscape may be more fragmented and resource-constrained. Provide turnkey adapters and simplified onboarding for small providers, including assisted assurance processes. For mental health and community services, prioritise data elements that are most relevant to their practice and ensure consent and information-sharing agreements reflect the sensitivities of these domains.
Geography matters, too. Different regions have made different architectural bets and have varying supplier mixes. A national approach that is prescriptive about standards but permissive about local implementation can respect this diversity while still driving convergence. Offer national rails and conformance tests, and let regions pick the orchestration approach that fits their history and capabilities—so long as they pass the same tests. This reduces the cost of change, avoids rip-and-replace shocks, and allows good ideas to spread across boundaries organically.
Interoperability programmes are infamous for measuring the wrong things: numbers of interfaces, count of “connected systems,” or raw message volumes. These vanity metrics can hide a lack of clinical impact. A better approach is to identify a handful of end-to-end outcomes that clinicians and patients feel. Does a GP receive a discharge summary within 24 hours? Are medication discrepancies resolved sooner? Are repeat tests declining for high-volume labs? Are elective surgery pathways flowing with fewer cancellations due to missing information? These measures should be published, trended and tied to incentives. They are also the canary in the coal mine for any technical or governance issues.
Honesty is equally important. Not every standard will work first time, and not every supplier will move at the same pace. Publishing roadmaps, change logs and post-incident reports builds credibility, invites collaborative problem-solving and prevents surprises. A national interoperability council that includes clinicians, patient groups, suppliers large and small, academics and cyber specialists can provide a forum for airing disagreements and agreeing compromises quickly. The aim is not bureaucratic control but shared stewardship of a public good.
Suppliers are not obstacles to interoperability; they are essential partners. The best national programmes make the rules fair, predictable and commercially sensible. When vendors have confidence that the playing field is level—that everyone will be held to the same open standards, that tests are deterministic and transparent, and that good behaviour is rewarded—they invest. SMEs bring fresh ideas, incumbents bring hard-won operational expertise, and clinicians get better tools sooner. In return, suppliers deserve timely decisions, clear versioning policies, and a no-surprises approach to change management.
Shared wins matter. Celebrate milestones publicly—first cross-sector discharge summaries flowing automatically, first region to retire a legacy interface thanks to a standard API, first citizen to successfully share a digital care plan with their carer. These stories build momentum, keep teams motivated and show taxpayers what they are getting for their money: safer care, faster service, and a platform for innovation that the UK can export.
Is your team looking for help with digital health interoperability? Click the button below.
Get in touch