What is Happening at NSW Health with Healthelink?

In the last couple of days there have been two reports on the ABC related to electronic health records in NSW. To date I am yet to see any other reports covering what was said in a couple of news bulletins.

The two items were, in chronological order, as follows:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772953.htm

Privacy group urges patients to opt out of database

The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) says patients should ask their doctor not to put their records on a new electronic database, because the system is a breach of privacy.

The New South Wales Government says it will roll out the system, which will allow a patient's health records to be accessed from anywhere within the public health system at any time.

The chairwoman of the APF, Anna Johnston, says patients' records will be put on the database unless they opt out.

Ms Johnston says a trial of the system has failed to get the support of doctors.

"There are very real concerns amongst GPs that if they do participate in the system they will be in breach of federal privacy law which says you cannot collect health information about people without their consent," she said.

"The system has been designed in such a way that health service providers could effectively collect health information about every person in the state, not just those who are their patients."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773511.htm

Electronic medical record system can save lives: Iemma

New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says the introduction of a new electronic medical record system will reduce hospital errors and cut costs.

The electronic system places patient details on an internal computer system for quicker access by clinicians.

Private company Cerner Corporation has won a $40 million contract to roll the system out for the state's eight area health services by 2009.

Mr Iemma says it will provide one integrated system.

"This can save lives," he said.

"It frees up the time of the health care professionals to provide health care and not administration."

Currently only 4 per cent of patients are choosing to opt out of the program.
In the future, the system could be centralised and connected to the records of general practitioners.

The Australian Privacy Foundation has raised concerns that expanding the system could breach privacy laws.”

The interesting aspects of all this are as follows.

1. The normally “I’ll announce something good every day” Health Minister in NSW John Hatzistergos was not the announcee of the news.

2. The Premier’s press release refers to Cerner Corporation (a very large US based listed Health IT provider of predominantly hospital systems).

I believe what the Premier’s announcement is about is the final wrapping up of an aborted RFT-IT 190. This tender was released in May 2005 to obtain what used to be referred to as Point of Care Clinical Software (PoCCS) and which has been relabelled as Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software.

As stated in the tender document:

“Potentially four Areas could be seeking EMR implementations through the period contract arrangements resulting from this RFT. These are South Eastern Sydney Illawarra, Hunter New England, Greater Southern and Justice Health”

Some 17 months later we now hear that Cerner is to take up the baton NSW wide as far as clinical systems are concerned for all Area Health Services. This is obviously a good thing as having as much of the current NSW market as Cerner already had – consistency across the whole State system will provide useful efficiencies in staff training and the costs of staff – relocation as well as in the consistency of operational data available.

The delays and costs in getting to this point are, of course, just ridiculous. Six months should have been more than enough time to test the market and confirm (or not) Cerner as the sole EMR provider for NSW Health for the next few years. No wonder the Health Minister left it to his Premier!

This software is specifically for internal Hospital use and has nothing really directly to do with the Healthelink project which I understand is still battling with the issues raised by the Privacy Foundation and which threatens to become a considerable white elephant.

Cerner’s approach to security and privacy, along with its internal hospital operational role, should provide much less in the way of privacy concerns. Systems such as Cerner's provide very considerable operational support for in-hospital care delivery and clearly are something one would not want to take advantage of when in hospital.

I would be curious to hear comments from any readers who have better information – noting the useful confirmation of the iSoft comments made here from a previous insider that has been posted recently.

David.