The following appeared over last weekend.
Blueprint for reform fails to factor in IT
Karen Dearne, IT writer | April 18, 2009
Article from: The Australian
MEDICAL and consumer groups are astonished the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission has failed to put information technologies at the very heart of health sector reform plans.
The commission, led by Christine Bennett, was set up by the Rudd Government in February 2008 to create a blueprint for healthcare reform.
A somewhat scattered interim report, released just before Christmas, has sparked a rush of further submissions as the commission writes its final report, due in June.
David More, a respected clinician and health IT expert, was bewildered to discover the commission was "yet to address just how health IT is to be approached".
"This is despite their recognition that personal e-health records are 'arguably the single most important enabler of patient-centric care'," More says in his just-published submission.
"Even more worrying is the apparent lack of understanding of how IT should underpin many aspects of the healthcare sector.
"Obvious examples include all the usual clinical and administrative systems as well as telemedicine, supply chain management, performance monitoring and spatial and mapping systems."
Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association executive director Prue Power says e-health records and information management tools must be a "core tenet" of the reform plan, not just in aged care as suggested.
The Business Council of Australia has delivered a tough warning that more of the same isn't acceptable.
"Many previous reviews have documented the fragmentation, the inequities in access to services, the failings in quality," BCA chief executive Katie Lahey says. "The lessons from these must be addressed, or this will be yet another missed opportunity to add to the list.
"Without a fit-for-purpose system we will continue to under-utilise resources and experience gaps in services."
Bluntly, the BCA says the priority must be to "put in place the rudiments of rational and informed decision-making": information and measurement systems; accountability and monitoring structures; processes to identify future needs and opportunities, and "learning from research and errors".
More here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25343704-23289,00.html
Now it was nice to be picked up as a commentator and provider of a submission along with many others! (Thanks Ms Dearne).
Reflecting on this what did occur was that there were a legion of submissions - 182 at the last count –but that there is just no planned feedback to those who contributed – other than an opportunity to read the final report.
It seems to me this is simply not good enough. What should happen is that a draft of the final report should be provided, with reasonable notice, to all those who provided a submission so they can signify their level of satisfaction with the proposed changes.
I guess we can all dream in hope – but I am sure not holding my breath!
David.
1 comment:
What sort of feedback can they give? An acknowledgment, certainly - "Thank you for your submission which will be given full consideration by the Commission. We appreciate the time and resources involved in preparing and lodging your submission and we ............. blah blah blah".
Anything else at this time would be distracting and open up a hornet's nest of ping-pong criticism.
However, some submissions will stand-out and these parties should be invited to engage further, face to face, confidentially, or whatever seems appropriate.
Post a Comment