Healthcare organizations face a unique data challenge: a diverse set of stakeholders — healthcare providers (HCPs), payers (insurers), pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, patients, researchers, and more — all act as producers and consumers of data. Each stakeholder generates data (e.g., clinicians record patient vitals, payers create claims, patients log wearable device readings) and, in turn, relies on data created by others. The result is often a complex web of information flow. However, when healthcare data models are fragmented across departments or applications, serious problems arise; this is why robust data models in healthcare are critical to enterprise-wide consistency. Fragmentation creates silos that limit timely data sharing and hinder collaboration among care teams.
For example, if critical patient information is scattered in incompatible systems, providers may struggle to assemble a complete view of a patient’s history, leading to inefficiencies or even medical errors. In practice, the data models healthcare provider teams rely on must unify information across systems to support safe, efficient care. At an organizational level, fragmented data also disrupts performance reporting and makes regulatory compliance (such as value-based care reporting) more difficult.
These issues ultimately impede scalability; as the organization grows, adding new facilities or services becomes harder when each part of the business has its own isolated data model. In short, the lack of a unified, scalable data model negatively impacts operational efficiency, compliance oversight, and the ability to grow or innovate. See our National e-Health System case study of interoperable architecture and governance in practice.
The goal, therefore, is to design healthcare data models that can scale with organizational growth. This means building a data architecture that supports integration across stakeholders, ensures consistency for compliance needs, and can handle increasing data volume and complexity.
This article explains how to develop data models for healthcare operations and how to create healthcare data models that remain scalable and standards-aligned over time. In this article, we will explore how understanding stakeholder data hierarchies informs model design, compare centralized vs decentralized architecture approaches (including when a common data model healthcare strategy is appropriate), review classical and modern data modeling techniques, discuss the challenges faced by software vendors, provide healthcare data model examples, and highlight why standards like FHIR have emerged as a foundation for scalable healthcare data infrastructure.
What is a Healthcare Data Model?
Information about a patient’s health may be better organized, saved, and accessed with the use of a healthcare data model; in practice, aligning data models in healthcare across stakeholders ensures consistency as organizations scale. Electronic health records (EHRs), payer platforms, research systems all rely on scalable data models. For an EHR development company, aligning these models early is essential to avoid fragmentation and interoperability issues. These models determine the efficacy of data sharing, validation, reusability, and scalability as businesses expand, especially for healthcare provider operations that must reconcile clinical, claims, and device data into unified healthcare data models.
Healthcare architects usually use a three-tiered approach to data modeling to construct scalable data systems:
1. Conceptual Data Model
The conceptual model provides an overview of the healthcare ecosystem’s information capture and flow architecture. Data categories (e.g., patients, encounters, observations), linkages between them, and expected system-to-system interactions (often via APIs or messaging frameworks) are described. Consider it the high-level structure outlining the domain, entities, and data flow, avoiding the nitty-gritty of implementation. In a conceptual model, for instance, it is possible to determine that:
- Healthcare entities like providers, labs, and insurers need to exchange standardized data.
- Systems should communicate via RESTful APIs, following modern interoperability protocols.
- Patient identities should be consistently mapped across multiple systems (e.g., using a Master Patient Index).
This layer is technology-agnostic and focused on ensuring stakeholder alignment and interoperability goals at the business level.
2. Logical Data Model
In order to clarify data items, their types, restrictions, and relationships, the logical model converts the conceptual model into a more thorough and organized manner. In a way that systems and developers can start implementing, it answers how the domain entities relate.
A well-developed logical model is HL7 FHIR, which allows for machine-readable and interoperable representations of administrative and clinical data through dedicated FHIR services that enable standardized resource exchange across systems; FHIR is frequently adopted as a common data model for healthcare and underpins many healthcare data model strategies.
To move from model to production quickly, consider our Kodjin FHIR Server, a production-ready FHIR platform with profile/validation support, terminology integration, SMART on FHIR security, and scalable APIs that accelerate implementation while keeping your logical model standards-aligned.
3. Physical Data Model
The physical model operationalizes the logical design into actual data infrastructure — which is often delivered via professional data platform development services that ensure correct storage, indexing, querying, and secure access.
In all cases, initiatives to develop data models for healthcare should balance governance with agility so the architecture can evolve with clinical workflows, regulatory change, and data growth.
Choosing a Solution Architecture Model
When developing a scalable data model, a key architectural decision is whether to centralize or decentralize the data management across the organization. Different organizational models for data and analytics have been proposed to address this, ranging from fully centralized to fully decentralized, as well as hybrid approaches that blend the two. Each model has implications for governance, agility, and scalability:
- Centralized Model: All data architecture and analytics functions are consolidated in a single team or platform. For example, a hospital system might have one enterprise clinical data warehouse and one data engineering team serving all departments. The centralized model can enforce consistency in data definitions, tools, and governance practices.
This uniformity improves data quality and compliance; everyone uses the same master patient index, the same security controls, etc. It also avoids duplication of effort, since one team can develop a solution once for the entire organization. In fact, centralizing resources often eliminates duplicate efforts and achieves economies of scale.
However, the downside is that a centralized approach may be less responsive to individual departmental needs. With a single team managing requests, backlogs can grow, and end-users might feel that improvements or reports take too long. There’s a risk of “one-size-fits-all” solutions that don’t perfectly fit any department.
- Decentralized Model: In a decentralized model, each department or business unit manages its own data and possibly has its own analytics or IT team. For instance, the cardiology department might maintain a separate registry database (healthcare data warehouse), and research, finance, and outpatient clinics each have their own systems. The advantage here is responsiveness and domain alignment; teams embedded in departments can rapidly tailor solutions to local needs and are intimately familiar with their specific data.
This often leads to higher stakeholder satisfaction at the department level and allows innovation to happen in parallel in different parts of the organization. The big drawback, however, is inconsistency. Different units may use different data definitions, formats, or tools, making enterprise-wide data integration extremely challenging. Decentralization often results in duplication of efforts, where two teams unknowingly solve the same problem in silos.
For example, multiple departments might independently develop similar patient outreach dashboards, wasting resources. It can also increase compliance risks — ensuring every unit follows privacy and security policies is harder when systems are disparate.
Choosing the right model often depends on the organization’s size, culture, and maturity. A small startup or a single-hospital system might start centralized for efficiency. A large multi-hospital network with diverse service lines might lean toward being decentralized to empower each unit.
Understanding Data Production and Consumption Hierarchies
To design an effective data model, one must first understand how various healthcare stakeholders produce and consume data, essentially, the data hierarchy in the healthcare ecosystem. Consider the major stakeholders and their roles:
This interplay forms a feedback loop. The way software and databases are architected determines how easily stakeholders can get the data they need. For example, if an electronic health record (EHR) system’s data model is poorly designed, a physician may struggle to retrieve a complete medication list, directly affecting patient care. Likewise, if a claims database is missing key clinical fields, a payer’s analytics team might draw incorrect conclusions about quality metrics. Essentially, stakeholders and data architecture influence each other: stakeholders’ needs should drive the data model design, and the quality of the data model in turn impacts each stakeholder’s outcomes.
By mapping out who generates what data and who needs access to it, organizations can design models that ensure a smooth flow of information, minimizing redundant data entry, enabling real-time access, and preserving data integrity across the board; in practice, this is how teams create healthcare data models that scale across clinical, operational, and research use cases.
Evolution of Approaches to Data Modeling
Data modeling in healthcare (and indeed in all industries) has evolved significantly over the past few decades. Historically, organizations followed formal, standardized methodologies — often influenced by ISO/IEC software engineering standards — to design software and data architecture. These methodologies placed heavy emphasis on documentation of requirements, entity-relationship diagrams, and architecture description frameworks before any implementation.
For example, the ISO/IEC 12207 standard outlines a structured software development process, including defined phases for architectural design. In healthcare, earlier standards like HL7 version 3 attempted to create a comprehensive, globally consistent common data model for healthcare. On paper, HL7 v3’s Reference Information Model (RIM) was elegant and thorough — a single model intended to cover every clinical scenario. It came with its own modeling methodology and even custom diagramming tools. The problem? It was overly complex. Implementers found that despite the “data-modeling brilliance” of HL7 v3, it was too complicated for software developers to use in practice.
This highlights a general lesson from historical approaches: extremely rigid or all-encompassing data models can falter if they don’t account for real-world developer and workflow needs.
From a database technology perspective, older healthcare applications were almost exclusively built on relational database management systems (RDBMS), such as Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, or PostgreSQL. The relational model organizes data into tables (relations) with predefined fields (columns) and uses keys to relate tables. Data is manipulated with SQL (Structured Query Language). Core components of a relational schema include tables, fields, and indexes (to optimize query speed). Example mapping study.
For instance, a typical hospital database might have tables for Patients, Encounters, LabResults, Medications, etc., each with fixed columns (PatientName, DOB, etc. in the Patients table) and indexes on key fields like PatientID. Relational databases enforce schema integrity (e.g., every lab result row must reference a valid patient in the Patient table), which is excellent for consistency and transactional reliability. Many healthcare standards were designed with relational structures in mind, even HL7 v3 assumed an underlying relational-like model for implementation, and early EHR systems were essentially large relational databases.
Modern approaches have expanded the toolkit beyond strictly relational models by incorporating healthcare data analytics services to handle high-volume, multi-structured data in clinical and research settings. Key trends include:
- NoSQL and Document Databases: Not all healthcare data fits neatly into tables. For example, a genomic data report or a physician’s narrative note has a flexible structure. Document-oriented databases (e.g., MongoDB) store data as JSON-like documents, which can accommodate varying structures. These have a flexible schema: not every record (document) needs the same set of fields.
Many modern healthcare apps (like patient-facing mobile apps or certain EHR modules) use document databases for things like storing patient preferences, device data, or other semi-structured content that evolves over time.
- Distributed and Big Data Platforms: As data volumes grew, especially with the advent of electronic records and medical imaging, organizations adopted distributed data storage and processing (Hadoop, Spark, cloud data lakes). These architectures move beyond the single SQL server model to clusters that can scale horizontally. For example, a research hospital might dump massive datasets (imaging files, genomic sequences, years of EHR data) into a data lake on cloud object storage, then use distributed SQL or map-reduce jobs to analyze it. The data model here is often schema-on-read (you impose structure when reading the data) rather than schema-on-write, as in traditional databases.
- Vector Databases (for AI/ML): A recent addition to the database landscape, vector databases are designed for storing and querying high-dimensional vectors, which are numeric representations of data generated by AI models.
In healthcare, vector databases are gaining traction for tasks like semantic search (e.g., finding similar cases) or image analysis. While emerging, they extend healthcare data models to support AI-native retrieval patterns at scale, enabling smarter queries over unstructured notes, images, and signals.
While still an emerging technology, vector databases are built for scalability; they can ingest and index millions of embeddings, which is important as healthcare organizations adopt machine learning for decision support and research.
Challenges for Software Vendors and Device Manufacturers
For companies building healthcare software or devices, designing a data model in healthcare from scratch can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, a custom architecture lets you optimize for your specific product or novel technology. On the other hand, there are many common healthcare data requirements for which reinventing the wheel is often unnecessary, or even counterproductive. Let’s unpack some challenges in healthcare data modeling:
1. Redundant Effort and Reinventing the Wheel
A hospital or clinic needs to store patient demographics — name, date of birth, contact info — regardless of whether they use Software A or Software B. Every EHR vendor, lab system, or medical device vendor ends up creating data structures for these fundamental concepts. This leads to tremendous duplication of effort across the industry as teams create healthcare data models for the same things. Each vendor’s engineering team is essentially writing similar code to handle patients, medications, test results, etc., but in slightly different ways.
Beyond the waste of effort, it means whenever two systems need to talk to each other, a custom interface or data mapping is required because their underlying data models differ. Ideally, common healthcare data needs would be served by standard models or shared libraries, freeing vendors to focus on the unique aspects of their product.
2. Custom Architecture vs. Standards
There are certainly times when a custom data model is justified, typically when dealing with novel data types or technology for which no standard yet exists. For example, a company inventing a new implantable device that streams continuous biochemical readings might need to devise a proprietary data schema to capture that device’s output, simply because standards haven’t caught up.
Similarly, cutting-edge research applications (e.g., a bespoke AI algorithm tracking an experimental biomarker) might temporarily live outside any standard model. In these cases, innovation drives the architecture. However, once a technology or data type matures, there is strong pressure to move toward standardization via a common data model for healthcare. Most healthcare data — patient info, labs, imaging, medications, billing codes — is not so unique as to warrant a completely custom model for each vendor.
Using established schemas and terminologies can dramatically reduce development time and improve interoperability. As one commentary on interoperability noted, it’s preferable to handle common needs “within a standards-based framework” rather than rebuilding them each time.
3. Integration Burden
A direct consequence of each vendor having its own model is the integration nightmare for provider organizations that use multiple systems, even when relying on experienced healthcare integration services. Software developers often find that integrating with one EHR (say Epic) and then trying to integrate the same app with another (say Cerner) is like starting from scratch due to different data schemas and APIs.
This lack of a standard data model means slower deployment of new solutions across the healthcare market; vendors and startups must spend huge effort tailoring their product for each customer environment. For device manufacturers, the problem is similar: each might define how a “blood pressure reading” or “heart rate” is formatted in their system, forcing downstream software to accommodate many formats.
4. Compliance and Regulatory Overhead
Custom models can also increase the burden of regulatory compliance. If a vendor designs a data model in isolation, they must ensure it meets all privacy, security, and data retention requirements (e.g., HIPAA) on their own.
For example, in Germany, healthcare data is subject to strict localization rules. Sensitive medical information (e.g., patient records, lab results) must be stored in data centers physically located within Germany, not even elsewhere in the European Union. This regulatory requirement significantly limits the choice of cloud vendors and impacts architectural decisions early in the data model design process. A custom model that doesn’t anticipate these constraints may require a costly redesign to meet compliance expectations.
By aligning with standards (e.g., standard code sets for diagnoses, standard audit log formats) and reusable healthcare data models, vendors can inherit compliance “pre-checks” since those standards were often designed with regulations in mind.
In light of these challenges, there’s a strong argument for reuse and standardization in healthcare data modeling. Not everything can or should be standardized; innovation will always require some custom work.
Conclusion
Healthcare data modeling is no longer a purely technical concern; it’s a strategic necessity. As organizations expand, diversify, and digitize, the need for unified, scalable healthcare data models becomes critical. Fragmentation hinders care delivery, burdens compliance, and slows innovation. By taking a structured approach, starting with stakeholder mapping and progressing through conceptual, logical, and physical models, organizations can build data systems that are not only technically robust but also aligned with real-world workflows and regulatory expectations.
Whether you’re a healthcare provider consolidating across departments, a payer optimizing analytics pipelines, or a vendor building a reusable healthcare analytics solution, investing in scalable data models pays dividends across quality, efficiency, and growth.
The key is to avoid reinventing the wheel. Common healthcare data needs can and should be solved using well-established standards and models, enabling organizations to focus their resources on differentiation rather than duplication.
We dive deep where others skim
Our healthcare software development firm brings the expertise and precision needed to tackle the industry complexities. With a specialized focus on healthcare processes, regulations, and technology, we deliver solutions that address the toughest challenges.
FAQ
How can Edenlab’s healthcare data models help improve my organization’s data management?
We unify multi-source clinical, claim, and device data into purpose-built platforms (CDR, registries, hubs), standardize via FHIR data model, automate ingestion/ETL, enforce SMART on FHIR security and automated governance, and raise reliability with AI-powered data quality plus self-serve analytics (including agentic LLMs).
What makes Edenlab’s approach to healthcare data modeling different from competitors?
We’re FHIR-first yet multi-standard (HL7 v2/v3, CDA, DICOM, X12, openEHR) and accelerate delivery with our Kodjin framework — modular, deeply customizable, end-to-end (ingestion-validation-storage-APIs-analytics) with compliance enablers and a future-ready path without vendor lock-in.
How can I ensure that my healthcare organization’s data model is fully compliant with industry standards?
We combine FHIR+CQL and clinical terminologies (ICD-10, SNOMED CT, LOINC, RxNorm) with SMART on FHIR security and an automated governance layer (metadata, lineage, access policies), and we support ONC, CMS, IPS, ISiK/ISiP, and Gematik certification.
What are the costs involved in implementing healthcare data modeling solutions?
Costs are scoped during discovery and vary with integration breadth, migration/quality uplift, analytics/AI, infrastructure choices, and any certification targets; our phased delivery and reusable components (including Kodjin) shorten builds and help keep long-term ownership predictable.
How long does it take to implement Edenlab’s data model solutions in my healthcare organization?
Timelines depend on integration complexity, data quality/migration, stakeholder readiness, and certification; we surface the critical path in discovery and use pre-built Kodjin modules to accelerate an otherwise greenfield effort.
Stay in touch
Subscribe to get insights from FHIR experts, new case studies, articles and announcements
Great!
Our team we’ll be glad to share our expertise with you via email
