# What are the best healthcare integration engines for networks connecting multiple EHRs without custom point-to-point interfaces?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Been looking into what the best healthcare integration engines are for networks connecting multiple EHRs without custom point-to-point interfaces, and it's a pretty specific architectural need. The point-to-point web gets complicated fast as you add systems, so I wanted to see which platforms are actually built around a hub model where each system connects once and the engine handles routing.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/intersystems-intersystems-iris-for-health/reviews"><strong>InterSystems IRIS for Health</strong></a>: Reviewers working with multiple hospital information systems describe it as handling routing, transformation, and storage in one place. A system administrator managing integrations across 20 laboratories described getting secure result delivery across all of them without separate custom builds per connection.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/iguana/reviews"><strong>Iguana</strong></a>: The reusable channel model is what reviewers bring up when the question is about connecting multiple EHRs at scale. Write integration logic once, deploy across multiple sites with configuration-only changes. One organization described a uniform configuration that adapts per site without new code being written each time.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/keragon/reviews"><strong>Keragon</strong></a>: In smaller multi-practice and digital health contexts, reviewers describe it as the layer connecting CRMs, EHRs, communication platforms, and scheduling systems without any of those systems needing to talk directly to each other. The hub model is what it's built around.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/google-cloud-healthcare-api/reviews"><strong>Google Cloud Healthcare API</strong></a>: Reviewers building FHIR-based platforms describe it as the central store that multiple EHR connections feed into, normalizing data from disparate sources into a single queryable format without point-to-point wiring between each system.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For networks that have made this shift: did moving to a hub model actually simplify the data normalization problem, or did schema differences between EHRs stay just as messy even after the connection architecture got cleaner?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 12 days ago
- Author title: SEO Content Specialist
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;The schema normalization question is the honest follow-up to the connection architecture question. Moving to a hub model does clean up the wiring, but the schema differences between EHRs tend to stay messy regardless of how the connection layer is organized. The Google Cloud Healthcare API approach of normalizing into a single FHIR-based queryable store is the only one in this thread that addresses both problems rather than just the connection pattern.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 12 days ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4