The authors conducted a dual-perspective survey to document real-world deployments of openEHR Clinical Data Repositories (CDRs). The study combined two data sources: a vendor survey targeting openEHR CDR providers and a community survey of openEHR practitioners. The vendor survey captured organisational deployment footprints; the community survey (n=29) collected practitioner-reported context including regulatory environments, adoption drivers, and perceived barriers. The survey instruments and aggregated country-level data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Individual vendor responses were not made public because respondents were assured organisational anonymity.
Eleven vendor organisations reported deployments across 22 countries and more than 100 institutions and health regions. The complementary community survey covered 29 respondents from 17 countries. When combined, the two surveys provide coverage of 28 countries, and the authors report that 26 of those countries have at least one openEHR CDR deployment. These data map a global footprint of openEHR deployments documented by vendors and practitioners.
The authors identify two distinct channels by which openEHR has achieved national-scale presence. First, through vendor-market convergence, openEHR-based systems have proliferated across many regional authorities without a formal national mandate. Second, through national health record adoption, several governments have built or procured national systems that use openEHR as their technical foundation. Together these channels explain how openEHR is present at scale in multiple countries without a single uniform pathway.
The vendor data document extensive regional coverage in several countries. Notable regional penetrations include coverage of 19 of 21 Swedish regions, 3 of 4 Norwegian health regions, and 16 of 21 Finnish wellbeing services counties. On the national adoption side, governments in Ireland, Malta, Greece, Jamaica and Slovenia have built or procured national systems using openEHR as the technical basis. Across Europe, these deployments amount to an openEHR-based interoperability infrastructure already operating in multiple EU member states.
The surveys report usage patterns of deployed openEHR CDRs. Overall, 61% of deployments serve primary use only, while 12% support both primary and secondary use. The remainder are not detailed in the source. These proportions indicate that most documented deployments were implemented primarily for clinical/operational use rather than combined clinical and secondary (research, analytics, reporting) use.
Across geographies and deployment tiers, the most consistent barrier identified is lack of openEHR-specific knowledge. This knowledge gap affects vendor, implementer, and practitioner capacity to design, deploy, and operate openEHR-based CDRs. The community survey contextualised additional drivers and barriers but did not report further quantification in the source document beyond the central role of knowledge deficits. The authors conclude that adoption has been driven more by practitioner need and innovation than by regulatory mandates.
The study found no country in which openEHR is explicitly named in binding national regulation. The authors characterise this absence as a source of structural fragility for openEHR deployments and as an unrealised opportunity for alignment with the European Health Data Space (EHDS). In other words, despite the broad practical presence of openEHR-based infrastructure across multiple EU member states, formal regulatory recognition or mandates referencing openEHR were not identified in the surveyed data.
The authors state that the survey instruments and the aggregated country-level data supporting the article's conclusions are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Individual vendor responses remain confidential and were not published because respondents were guaranteed organisational anonymity. The authors declared no competing interests and confirmed adherence to relevant ethical guidelines and participant consent procedures. The study is presented as a preprint on medRxiv with the DOI provided in the source.