Thanks, Mike -- these are very insightful comments. Your point is well-taken; IHE profiles can and do reference multiple underlying standards (not just FHIR). This is, I think, one of the key strengths -- an IHE profile of FHIR can draw in and include complementary specifications that are "out of scope" of the FHIR standard. Importantly, an IHE profile can also be leveraged to provide a functionally equivalent FHIR option alongside legacy options that are already widely deployed in our digital health landscape. In this way, IHE profiles can provide the
long on-ramp that any new technology will need as it diffuses and is broadly taken up over time.
In my view, Mike -- this FHIR uptake
will happen; I really do think that FHIR has a momentum that HL7v3 (or v2, or OpenEHR) did not ever achieve. Equally... I'm convinced this diffusion will happen in
ecosystem time... not
technology time. The former tends to be comparatively geologic while the latter (with all its hype) is often measured in dog-years.
Regarding the blog graphic's
LMIC flavour -- you caught me!

The example care pathways all denote WHO or UNICEF as the underlying guideline source. We could just as easily imagine the
Canadian Diabetes Association or the
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer along that top row. Of course, I'd point out that our immunization guidelines here in Canada (and everywhere else in the world) are based on the global EPI guideline. This is generally true for evidence-based care pathways -- they are remarkably consistent with each other, country to country.
Mike -- I hope you can join the webinar next week. Yours is an important, experienced voice on the topic of IHE and its role!