FHIR Data Platforms & Cloud Stores
Implement a managed cloud FHIR store or build a custom FHIR backend. We turn the platform choice into a working data model, ingestion pipeline and operating plan—not just a provisioned endpoint.
For healthcare product teams, platform engineers and health-data leaders.
Identifiers · resource mapping · terminology
Illustrative architecture · clinical meaning and access rules need explicit engineering
A deliberate platform decision
The right choice depends on your product requirements and the responsibilities your team can sustain. Neither path removes the need for integration, validation or governance.
For teams that want a cloud provider to operate the underlying FHIR service while retaining ownership of their data model, integrations and application policies.
Work within the service’s supported versions, operations, regional availability and limits. Managed infrastructure does not eliminate product engineering or governance.
Managed does not mean interchangeable
These are platform options we can assess—not claims of partnership or identical capabilities. Confirm supported features, regions, quotas and pricing during architecture review.
A managed FHIR service with a FHIR API, Microsoft Entra-based access controls and audit logging.
Does the service fit the required API behaviour, identity model and Azure environment?
FHIR resource stores within Cloud Healthcare API datasets, with store configuration and profile-validation options.
Which dataset location, FHIR version and store settings match the data contract?
A managed service for storing and exchanging FHIR R4 health data, with import and FHIR API capabilities.
Do the supported operations, ingestion approach and AWS environment meet the product’s needs?
The work around the store
We scope the boundaries explicitly, so important engineering does not disappear between the cloud service, the source systems and your application.
Define required data elements, identifiers, terminology mappings and the implementation guides that apply.
Plan import, ongoing updates, source provenance, rejected records and checks for missing or duplicate data.
Connect identity and policy decisions to data access. A Consent resource alone is not an enforcement mechanism.
Agree isolation boundaries, deployment regions, retention and stakeholder review before choosing the storage topology.
Define audit coverage, alerts, recovery procedures, upgrade responsibilities and workload-based cost monitoring.
What your team receives
We agree the deliverables and acceptance criteria before implementation. Estimates follow the data, deployment and access requirements.
Compare managed services and custom requirements against your workflow.
YOU REVIEWArchitecture decision + ownership map
Map representative synthetic data and test agreed profiles and access paths.
YOU REVIEWResource mappings + validation evidence
Implement environments, pipelines, application access and observability.
YOU REVIEWWorking platform + automated checks
Test recovery and hand over deployment, maintenance and support boundaries.
YOU REVIEWRunbook + release acceptance checklist
Connecting or building?
If the job is connecting your product to an existing API, start with our FHIR integration service. If you need to create and operate the data foundation itself, this is the platform engineering conversation.
Explore FHIR API Integration →Connect customer EHR systems →Before choosing a store
FHIR API integration connects a product to an existing endpoint. This service builds the data platform behind the endpoint: storage architecture, ingestion, clinical models, access enforcement and operations. A project may need both, but they are different engineering scopes.
Yes. We can scope implementation around Azure Health Data Services, Google Cloud Healthcare API or AWS HealthLake, subject to the chosen service’s capabilities and your environment. Cloud subscriptions, usage charges and vendor agreements remain separate from the engineering scope.
Not necessarily. We first compare required resources, operations, profiles, tenancy, deployment constraints and operational ownership against managed services and suitable existing server foundations. Custom development should address a documented requirement, not duplicate a service without a reason.
No. A cloud service’s eligibility or controls do not by themselves establish compliance for your application. Configuration, access, consent enforcement, data handling, contracts and operating procedures must be reviewed with your security and compliance stakeholders.
We can assess migration and ongoing ingestion from existing sources. Scope includes mapping, terminology, identifiers, validation, reconciliation and error handling. Source access, data quality and the agreed migration or cutover approach affect the delivery plan.
We document the required regions, isolation boundaries, access model and retention requirements with your stakeholders, then assess the chosen platform against them. A tenancy design or region selection is not a legal guarantee; the architecture needs technical and compliance review.
Start with your requirements
Tell us about the product, source data and deployment constraints. We’ll discuss whether a managed cloud store, a custom backend or a simpler integration is the right scope.
