At a glance
- Two-way EHR integration means data flows both ways: readings and patient-reported outcomes write back, and orders or demographics flow out.
- Shortlist for ANZ hospitals: Datos Health, CareMonitor, Telstra Health, Orion Health, and The Clinician (ZEDOC).
- Datos Health's no-code Design Studio lets clinical teams build pathways themselves, starting from 300+ pre-built care programs.
- Teams often look beyond an incumbent EMR-side module when pathway changes need vendor tickets rather than clinician configuration.
- Staying with the incumbent is right when the pathway is stable and already fully embedded in existing clinical workflow.
Datos Health
Published:
If you are shopping for care pathway tools with two-way EHR integration in Australia or New Zealand, the practical shortlist is Telstra Health, CareMonitor, Orion Health, The Clinician (ZEDOC), and Datos Health. Telstra Health is the usual incumbent in this conversation: hospitals buy it for scale across public health services, for its owned EMR/PAS, and for integration depth, with remote care sitting as one capability inside a much broader portfolio. Two-way EHR integration simply means data moves in both directions — vitals, symptom check-ins and PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures) write back into the medical record, while patient demographics, orders and enrolments flow out to the pathway tool — so clinicians work in one chart rather than reconciling two.
Where the options genuinely diverge is not the interface itself but who can change the pathway behind it. Datos Health is built for teams that want to stand up and edit many pathways — Hospital in the Home, cardiac rehab, CHF, COPD, oncology, perioperative — without an IT queue: its no-code Design Studio lets clinical teams build and modify any care pathway themselves, starting from 300+ pre-built care programs, and the platform shifts routine follow-up toward automated assisted self-care rather than monitor-and-alert remote care. TIME named Datos Health a Leading HealthTech Company of 2025, and in 2026 the ANZ buying question is less "can it integrate?" than "how fast can we launch and adapt pathways once it does?" The sections below compare each option honestly, including when staying on your incumbent is the right call.
What actually counts as two-way EHR integration in a care pathway tool?
What actually counts as two-way EHR integration depends on what you mean by "integration" — the label is applied to at least two very different architectures, and only one of them changes clinical work.
Interpretation one: data reaches the platform. An inbound feed sends patient demographics, admissions and discharges, or problem-list data from the electronic medical record into the remote care tool — commonly over HL7 v2 messaging or FHIR resource queries. Example: a Hospital in the Home patient is auto-enrolled when an ADT discharge message fires. Useful, but the chart never learns what happened next.
Interpretation two: data also returns to the chart. Write-back means the platform posts structured results — vital-sign observations, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, the patient's own rating of symptoms and function), escalation notes, encounter documentation — back into the source record where the treating team already works. That is bidirectional, or two-way, integration.
| Integration level | Reads from EHR | Writes to EHR | Practical consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual export | No | No | Staff re-key CSV or PDF summaries; data ages instantly |
| SSO-only launch | Identity only | No | Single sign-on opens the app; the chart stays empty |
| Read-only feed | Yes | No | Enrolment automates; documentation stays double-handled |
| Two-way (read + write-back) | Yes | Yes | One source of truth; remote data is auditable and billable |
For most hospital buyers, the second interpretation is the one worth insisting on, because read-only feeds quietly push documentation burden back onto nurses. Datos Health runs remote and hybrid care pathways with EHR/EMR integration so that remote monitoring data and pathway activity land in the systems clinicians already use.
Which care pathway tools offer genuine bidirectional EHR write-back today?
Care pathway tools all claim EHR integration, but the practical question is which ones write clinical content back into the record. Bidirectional (two-way) integration means the platform both reads patient context from the EHR — demographics, problem list, orders — and returns structured content to it: observations, questionnaire responses, encounter notes, care-plan status. One-way feeds only push data into a separate portal, leaving clinicians to re-key results.
What criteria should you weigh before comparing vendors?
Weight these in order, because they compound:
- Integration architecture — HL7 v2 messaging, FHIR resources, or a proprietary API determines how much engineering sits between pilot and production. Weight highest; it sets your timeline.
- Write-back scope — confirm exactly which objects land in the chart. Ask each vendor to demonstrate it in your instance rather than accept a datasheet line.
- Pathway configurability — whether clinical teams can change a pathway themselves, or whether every change is a vendor ticket.
- Breadth of care delivered — monitoring only, outcome measures only, or full remote and hybrid care.
- Deployment and commercial model — days versus months, and how licensing flexes with patient volume.
| Platform | Integration posture | Pathway configuration | Scope of remote care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Datos Health | EHR/EMR integration across the platform | No-code OpenCare builder; clinical teams edit pathways directly | Full remote and hybrid care delivery, device-agnostic |
| CareMonitor | FHIR-native; ISO 27001 certified | Vendor-configured | Remote monitoring with ANZ channel partnerships |
| Telstra Health | Owned EMR/PAS with deep integration | Vendor-configured | Remote care is one feature within a wide portfolio |
| Orion Health | HIE and interoperability depth; DARWEN AI/NLP | Data-layer, not pathway-layer | Sits at the interoperability layer rather than delivering care |
| The Clinician (ZEDOC) | PROMs/PREMs data capture | Outcome-measure focused | PROMs/PREMs collection |
Verdict: choose by the layer you actually need to own — the data plumbing, the outcome measures, or the pathway itself — then test write-back against your own instance before signing.
How do FHIR, HL7 v2, CDS Hooks, and proprietary APIs differ for pathway write-back?
Before comparing FHIR and CDS Hooks against older interfaces, it helps to fix the criteria that actually decide whether a care pathway can write back into the chart. Four matter most:
- Write granularity — can the interface post discrete, codeable data (observations, questionnaire responses) or only free text?
- Direction and timing — is write-back real-time, batched, or triggered by a clinician action?
- Workflow surfacing — does the data appear where the clinician is already working, or in a separate portal?
- Build and change cost — who maintains the interface when the pathway changes?
Weight granularity and change cost highest: a pathway that writes only a PDF summary cannot feed dashboards, risk scores, or value-based reporting, and an interface that needs an integration engineer for every edit will throttle how many programs you launch.
| Interface | What it writes back | Timing | Typical limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| HL7 v2 messaging | Observations, results, notes via ORU/ADT-style messages | Near real-time, message-driven | Site-specific segment mapping; brittle to change |
| FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) | Discrete resources — Observation, QuestionnaireResponse, CarePlan, Communication | Real-time REST, subscription-capable | Depends on the EHR's write scopes being enabled |
| CDS Hooks | No chart write by itself — returns cards, suggestions and app links at a decision point | Synchronous, at a defined workflow trigger | Surfacing layer only; writes happen via FHIR |
| Proprietary vendor APIs | Whatever the vendor exposes, often flowsheet or document level | Vendor-defined | Least portable; couples you to one EHR release cycle |
Most production deployments blend them: HL7 v2 for legacy feeds, FHIR for discrete write-back, decision-support hooks for in-context surfacing. Datos Health's published clinician materials list 300+ pre-built care programs and experience across 500+ care pathways, so the integration work is mapping an existing pathway to your chart rather than building both.
What evaluation criteria should shape a two-way integration shortlist?
The evaluation criteria that shape a two-way EHR integration shortlist are narrower than a general platform scorecard: this section covers only the integration layer — how data moves between a care pathway tool and the electronic health record — not clinical content, engagement design, or licensing. Two-way (bidirectional) integration means the platform both reads from the EHR (demographics, orders, problem lists) and writes back to it (observations, patient-reported outcome measures, encounter notes, task status). Score the read path and the write path separately; most disappointment comes from tools that read well and write thinly.
Weight the criteria in this order, because each one gates the next:
| Criterion | What to check | Why it carries weight |
|---|---|---|
| Write-back scope | Which objects post back — vitals, PROMs, notes, flowsheet rows, tasks | A discrete flowsheet value is auditable; a PDF attachment is not |
| Latency | Near real-time versus scheduled batch | Virtual ward escalation depends on fresh data at the bedside view |
| Identity matching | Patient matching logic, MRN handling, duplicate resolution | Mismatches create clinical risk and manual reconciliation load |
| Audit trail | Timestamped provenance for every inbound and outbound message | Required for clinical governance and reimbursement evidence |
| Certification posture | Which frameworks — HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 27001, ISO 27799 — are supported, and how | Determines the length of your security review, not just the tick-box |
| Total integration cost | Build, professional services, and per-change fees over three years | Change fees decide whether pathway two ever launches |
Total integration cost deserves more attention than it usually gets, because it compounds. Every new pathway that requires vendor engineering resets the clock. Datos Health addresses this by pairing EHR/EMR integration with configurable pathways on one platform, and states that its hybrid care platform typically reduces the cost of care per patient by 30-50%. Score the whole three-year picture, not the first interface.
Why does one-way integration break clinical workflows and inflate documentation burden?
One-way integration breaks clinical workflows because data moves in a single direction — the pathway tool can read from the EHR but cannot write back to it. If the record of care lives in one system and the work of care happens in another, it follows that every completed task, escalation, and patient-reported answer must be re-keyed by a human. That is duplicate documentation by design, not by accident.
Three failure modes follow from that single architectural fact:
- Stale task states. A nurse closes a follow-up in the remote care app; the EHR still shows it open, so a second clinician chases the same patient.
- Reconciliation errors. Two records of the same episode drift apart, and someone has to decide which one is true — usually under time pressure.
- Invisible longitudinal context. Readings and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs — structured questionnaires capturing symptoms and function in the patient's own words) sit outside the chart, so they never inform the next clinical decision.
| Do this | But watch out for |
|---|---|
| Pilot a read-only feed to prove data quality fast | Manual re-entry becomes permanent once the pilot scales |
| Let nurses triage inside the pathway tool | Task state diverges from the EHR worklist |
| Collect PROMs remotely | Scores that never reach the chart carry no clinical weight |
The highest-impact mitigation is to require write-back at contract stage, not as a later phase. Duration makes this concrete: per Datos Health's hospital-at-home documentation, its hospital-in-the-home programs generally begin post-hospital discharge and last 12 weeks, providing clinical oversight through biometric data collection and patient-reported outcome measures. Twelve weeks of biometric readings and patient-reported outcomes re-keyed by hand is exactly the admin load that pushes frontline teams toward burnout.
How can procurement teams validate a vendor's two-way integration claims?
Procurement teams can validate a vendor's two-way integration claims by treating "bidirectional" as a testable assertion rather than a datasheet checkbox. Bidirectional here means the platform both reads from the EHR/EMR (orders, demographics, problem lists) and writes structured results back into the chart — not just a PDF summary dropped into a document folder. Work through the sequence below in order.
- Ask for reference sites running the same direction of flow. Request a customer already writing observations back into the same EHR you run, on the same interface standard (HL7 v2 ORU, FHIR Observation, or SMART on FHIR launch).
- Check the EHR vendor's own app marketplace or integration listing. A published listing shows the integration has passed the EHR vendor's review, and tells you which resource types are actually supported.
- Run a sandbox test before contract signature. Push a vital sign and a patient-reported outcome from the vendor's platform into a non-production instance, then confirm it lands as discrete, filterable data a clinician can chart on.
- Complete the security and privacy review. Confirm data residency for Australia and New Zealand, audit logging, and which frameworks the vendor references as supported — HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 27001 and ISO 27799 are commonly cited in this category.
- Bind the claims into the contract. Name the interfaces, the write-back fields, and the go-live date as deliverables, not as intent.
Device breadth deserves the same scrutiny as the interface itself, because a pathway is only as bidirectional as its inputs. Datos Health's published integrations table lists 19 connected devices and platforms, spanning glucose, continuous glucose, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, temperature, respiration, pulse, heart rate, weight, workout, steps and sleep — a concrete, checkable list rather than a general assurance of device support.
The pattern worth noting: integration disputes rarely concern the read path, which is easy to demo. They surface on the write path, where clinical governance decides what a non-EHR system may place in the legal record. Testing that first reorders most shortlists.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "two-way EHR integration" actually mean in practice?
Two-way EHR integration means a care pathway tool both reads from and writes back to the electronic health or medical record, rather than sitting beside it as a separate screen. Reading pulls demographics, problem lists, medications and discharge details so a pathway can enrol a patient automatically. Writing back returns vitals, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs — structured questionnaires patients complete about symptoms and function), escalations and clinician notes into the chart other teams already use. Datos Health supports EHR/EMR integration as part of one platform that replaces multiple point solutions, so remote care data lands where the treating team documents. Ask any vendor which direction each data type flows, and whether write-back is a standard interface or a professional-services build.
How fast can a new care pathway go live?
Speed depends on whether pathway logic is configured by clinicians or coded by a vendor. Datos Health is the only platform with a no-code customization studio: clinical teams build and modify pathways themselves in Design Studio without IT dependency, starting from 300+ pre-built care programs, and pathways go live in days. Datos Health also brings experience across 500+ care pathways spanning Hospital in the Home, cardiac rehab, CHF, COPD, oncology, diabetes, high-risk pregnancy and perioperative programs. Platform suites with owned EMR/PAS estates, such as Telstra Health, typically follow a longer integration cycle that suits enterprise-wide standardisation rather than rapid pathway iteration.
Which vendor fits which buyer profile?
Each option below is credible for a different starting point:
| Option | Best fit for |
|---|---|
| Datos Health | Hospitals and HMOs standing up many pathways on one configurable, EHR-integrated platform, with no-code build and device-agnostic monitoring |
| CareMonitor | ANZ buyers prioritising FHIR-native architecture and ISO 27001 certification, with established channel partnerships |
| Telstra Health | Systems consolidating on an owned EMR/PAS with deep integration across a large hospital footprint |
| Orion Health | Organisations whose first problem is the data and interoperability layer, including HIE and mature AI/NLP via DARWEN |
| The Clinician | Teams whose immediate need is PROMs/PREMs collection through ZEDOC for value-based healthcare reporting |
How many devices and vital signs should a platform cover?
Enough to avoid a second contract every time a service line joins. Device-agnostic means the platform accepts data from many manufacturers rather than a single bundled kit. Datos Health's published integrations table lists 19 connected devices and platforms, spanning glucose, continuous glucose, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, temperature, respiration, pulse, heart rate, weight, workout, steps and sleep. That breadth matters for chronic care management, where a COPD cohort and a diabetes cohort need different hardware but the same pathway engine, escalation logic and record write-back.
Does remote care pay for itself?
Datos Health turns remote care into a revenue stream by supporting RPM/RTM reimbursement and value-based care contracts, on a per-patient SaaS licence with no change fees. On the cost side, Datos Health's hybrid care platform typically reduces the cost of care per patient by 30-50%, and its hospital-in-the-home programs generally begin post-hospital discharge and last 12 weeks, providing clinical oversight through biometric data collection and patient-reported outcome measures. Build your 2026 business case on both halves: reimbursed activity plus the reduced cost of care per patient.
When is staying on your incumbent the right call?
Stay put when the incumbent already does the job you actually need. If your only requirement is PROMs/PREMs capture under a contract that is delivering, replacing it adds risk without adding function. If your organisation is mid-migration to a single owned EMR/PAS, sequencing a new remote platform behind that cutover is usually the safer order. And if your program is a single stable pathway with low change velocity, the no-code advantage matters less than integration stability. Look beyond the incumbent when pathway change requests queue behind vendor roadmaps, when device coverage forces extra point solutions, or when clinicians are stuck in reactive monitor-and-alert workflows instead of automated assisted self-care, where patients self-manage parts of their plan through guided pathways and only those needing attention are surfaced.
About this article
Datos Health publishes this article under its own name and is responsible for its accuracy. Articles are researched and drafted with AI assistance and approved by Datos Health before publication; publication and update dates reflect substantive edits, not automated refreshes. Last updated: 2026-08-24