Blockchains, EHRs, roadblocks and baby steps

March 12, 2018 | by | 3 Comments

TTA founder and former editor Steve Hards crawls out of his retirement tent to squint at the misty landscape of blockchain technology.

In a recent dream I was observing an auditorium full of people chanting “Blockchain! Blockchain! Blockchain!” and yes, mantra-like, blockchain is now popping up all the time in health technology articles and presentations.

It has taken a while to get to this stage. It was January 2016 when Editor-in-Chief Donna first mentioned blockchain. Since then there appears to have been more talk than action.

A year ago, in February 2017, health IT guru Brian Ahier was able to say in a comment here “Blockchain of course, is going to sneak up on a lot of people…”

Where we have seen developments occurring is in the trickle of ‘coins’ or ‘tokens’ in health-related Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) of dubious investment worthiness. I may rant about those in a follow-up article if anyone is interested. (Let me know in a comment.)

The terminology is still in its ‘shakedown phase’ (see this great terminology rant) and, because of the publicity around Bitcoin, which is on a blockchain, the distinction between blockchains and distributed ledger databases is blurred. There are technical differences: blockchains are a sub-set of distributed ledgers (Wikipedia), which is the term I’ll generally use in this article.

Distributed ledgers and EHRs

What are the implications of distributed ledgers for the biggest databases in healthcare, electronic health records (EHRs)?

The two principal characteristics that differentiate distributed ledgers from the databases with which we are familiar are that they are more robust and, potentially, more private. Some even claim to be quantum computing hack proof although we will have to wait for hackers with quantum computers to test that.

Traditional databases are formed from one large or several linked entities that have a centralised control from where performance, data integrity and security are monitored and managed. There are human and technological factors that introduce weaknesses to all such systems, as the number of data breaches reported here over the years testify.

(more…)

In Big Genomics, preventing unwanted hacking and identification of individuals

October 31, 2015 | by
[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fotolia_41683185_S-Genomics.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Two Stanford University researchers, through their own ‘hacking’, are making genomics research and data base usage more secure–and shutting the door on misuse of personal genome sequences which are now available through commercial saliva testing (23andme) and even through records on family research websites.

Genomic data sets have become more accessible to researchers through a network of servers, dubbed beacons, called The Beacon Project, organized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Genomics researchers are interested in looking for a particular genetic variant in a multitude of genomic databases. Using these beacons, when a researcher finds a gene of interest, they then can apply for more complete access to the data. They can find mutations and find other researchers working on the same one.

However, the risk is that some of this data is not sufficiently de-identified, and in the process of ‘pinging’ these beacons for genetic data, someone can create an unauthorized genomic profile of that person. For instance, a ‘nefarious user’ can find the match for an individual’s genome in a heart disease beacon, then can infer that the individual — or a relative of that person — likely has heart disease. (more…)