tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post8167654635276161216..comments2024-03-29T09:18:22.495+11:00Comments on Australian Health Information Technology: Hansard Of Yesterday’s Proceedings In The Senate. Decide For Yourself If It Makes Much Sense How The Opposition and Green Senators Voted.Dr David G More MB PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-3103638232867339262012-06-26T17:28:42.710+10:002012-06-26T17:28:42.710+10:00Anon, please visit the publiclearning ehealth.gov....Anon, please visit the publiclearning ehealth.gov.au website.<br /><br />From memory, early versions of the privacy and security pages stated consumers would be able to see which 'healthcare <br />provider ORGANISATIONS' had accessed their PCEHR.<br /><br />Being able to see the role of the person associated with the healthcare provider organisation (eg GP, physio, <br />radiographer, Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-18092124703313138712012-06-25T13:41:46.611+10:002012-06-25T13:41:46.611+10:00Chris,
While I agree with much of what you have s...Chris,<br /><br />While I agree with much of what you have said, I question your first statement:<br /><br />The consumer will only see an audit log of 'healthcare organisations' who have accessed their PCEHR (eg, a hospital, a clinic, a pathology provider) but the audit log will not go deeper to reveal which individuals within that organisation accessed their PCEHR.<br /><br />Some Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-76760591238120628862012-06-23T06:38:51.357+10:002012-06-23T06:38:51.357+10:00PART 2
If a person has a legitimate purpose for a...PART 2<br /><br />If a person has a legitimate purpose for accessing a PCEHR, it would be known by the consumer, and that person should have no problem with being identified on an audit log as a person who accessed the PCEHR.<br /><br />If that person has no legitimate purpose for accessing a PCEHR, then the consumer should be given the capacity to detect and raise a 'red flag of Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-50458861970246092882012-06-23T06:38:15.612+10:002012-06-23T06:38:15.612+10:00PART 1
The consumer will only see an audit log of...PART 1<br /><br />The consumer will only see an audit log of 'healthcare organisations' who have accessed their PCEHR (eg, a hospital, a clinic, a pathology provider) but the audit log will not go deeper to reveal which individuals within that organisation accessed their PCEHR.<br /><br />This is primarily a matter of consumer trust.<br /><br />Everyone agrees it's important to know Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-43096910829404085542012-06-22T13:17:52.419+10:002012-06-22T13:17:52.419+10:00According to NEHTA Logical Service Specification P...According to NEHTA Logical Service Specification PCEHR View Service Version 1.1 the operation getAuditView returns details of the provider who was accessing the system. There are a number of conformance issues around the accuracy of this information, but saying that the information is not there is incorrect. (This can be verified by anyone who agrees to the t&c on https://vendors.nehta.gov.auAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-15622434751314767822012-06-22T08:02:56.111+10:002012-06-22T08:02:56.111+10:00Thanks Anon.
Someone please correct me if I'm...Thanks Anon.<br /><br />Someone please correct me if I'm wrong... my understanding is that from a possible 45K+ patients the wave site had obtained consents from over 4000, which I have,admittedly, 'assumed' to be 'consents to opt-in to the PCEHR'.<br /><br />This is just one of the many reasons why I wrote that consumers should defer their decision to opt-in to a PCEHR: <br /Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-73127174217489773252012-06-21T19:55:54.058+10:002012-06-21T19:55:54.058+10:00Thanks for the reply Cris, sorry about misspelling...Thanks for the reply Cris, sorry about misspelling your name before. The wave sites as I understand it are all testing different features of the PCEHR, eg e-discharge summaries, so a rounded evaluation would not be possible through them. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think the wave patients will still have to consent to transitioning into the NEHRS, it won't happen automatically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-70138749927411120482012-06-21T15:32:05.410+10:002012-06-21T15:32:05.410+10:00Hi Anon, in some reports over 4000 have already re...Hi Anon, in some reports over 4000 have already registered (from at least one of the wave groups).Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-67875982808712172222012-06-21T08:44:04.100+10:002012-06-21T08:44:04.100+10:00Catch 22 here Kris, don't you think? How can t...Catch 22 here Kris, don't you think? How can they evaluate the benefits if nobody registers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-88161521375347252282012-06-21T08:20:06.643+10:002012-06-21T08:20:06.643+10:00CONSUMERS SHOULD NOW BE CAUTIONED AGAINST OPTING I...CONSUMERS SHOULD NOW BE CAUTIONED AGAINST OPTING IN TO A PCEHR ON JULY 1ST, AND SHOULD INSTEAD BE ADVISED TO DEFER THEIR DECISION FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS... <br /><br />THAT IS, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EVERY CONSUMER HAS HAD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DULY CONSIDER THE 2-YEAR REPORT, WHICH SHOULD DETAIL 'POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL' IMPROVEMENTS IN POPULATION/PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES, AS WELL AS THE 'Cris Kerrnoreply@blogger.com