Monday, November 04, 2013

The PCEHR Enquiry Terms Of Reference Reveal The Government Really Doesn’t Get It.

Here are the Terms of Reference as announced yesterday.

Review Terms of Reference

The panel will conduct a Review into the personally controlled electronic health record system dealing with implementation, uptake and including, but not limited to the following:

  • The gaps between the expectations of users and what has been delivered
  • The level of consultation with end users during the development phase
  • The level of use of the PCEHR by health care professions in clinical settings
  • Barriers to increasing usage in clinical settings
  • Key clinician and patient usability issues
  • Work that is still required including new functions that improve the value proposition for clinicians and patients
  • Drivers and incentives to increase usage for both industry and health care professionals
  • The applicability and potential integration of comparable private sector products
  • The future role of the private sector in providing solutions
  • The policy settings required to generate private sector solutions

The Panel will make findings and recommendations to the Minister.

----- End TOR.

The problem in all this is that there seems to be an assumption that the PCEHR can be fixed and that the Program should continue.

Where is the consideration around just how sensible the basic PCEHR idea is, if the design architecture makes sense and an assessment of the evidence that might be available to confirm or deny this assertion.

There also does not seem to be any review of just what the objectives for the Program should be and how these should be assessed.  I note no clear mentions of patient outcomes, patient safety and so on.

If you don’t have a clear non-technical view of what objectives are sought then designing IT to reach the objectives is impossible!

I also wonder how what is found in this enquiry will fit with the Deloittes Review / Refresh of the National E-Health Strategy. I am sure Deloittes it taking a broader and probably more sensible starting point than we are seeing in this effort.

I really fear this is going to turn out very badly indeed!


No comments: