This dropped into view today.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I got emailed an article in Computerworld this week, which seem
This article seems to be based on the rants of one individual who is blogging his way into retirement. The fact that one of the main objectives of this person's blog is to "provide commentary on what seems to have become the lamentable state of e-Health in Australia" and "to foster improvement" is hilarious. Obviously there will be a negative perspective of a topic irrespective of any merits of benefits there might be.
The blogger seems to be aiming target at NeHTA, as he has failed to recognise the challenges of being handed a poisoned chalice. Having been involved a little at NeHTA, it was easy to see that while every effort is being made to define pragmatic Australian standards for e-health information systems, numerous other parties will directly influence the likelihood of success. One instance that springs to mind was NeHTA had developed a simple directory service to identify nodes on the network. It was put forward as an Australian standard, but one vendor who had a hugely complex and excessively featured commercial non-standard product, vetoed the standard, forcing the market place to use it.
Lots more here:
What to make of this?
Does he mention all the educational stuff I post?
Does he mention all the positive suggestions I make for improved leadership and governance etc.
Does he actually understand that lack of key stakeholder involvement is a death blow?
What ‘poisoned chalice’ cannot be sorted out after an organisation has been operational for 5+ years with competent management?
Has he actually read an understood more than the most recent 20 posts and the heading?
Anyone have a clue what this actually means?
“Dr More also seems unaware that as well as defining technical implementations, operational standards are also being defined to ensure the technical implementations are not compromised by poor work practices. Certainly, some areas in NeHTA (although I can't speak for all) recognise that no matter how well the system is designed, if the configuration, operational practices, support processes and policies are weak, the technical systems will be vulnerable.”
I sure don’t. Sounds to me like a consultant trying to sell something..but what would I know? (A very great deal as it happens is the answer).
When his has a blog with 50 sensible e-health posts I am sure we will all take him more seriously!
A worthy rant. I suggest readers make up their own mind if the “Procrastinator” has a clue. He has been on Blogger since 2002 and has never posted on e-Health and has only averaged 7 or 8 posts a year. Clearly travel to Fiji, testing stuff and not e-Health is the passion here!
And to the much broader point. Does this blogger think we are (in OZ) doing OK in e-Health and what is he doing to improve it – given he says I am doing nothing?
We all await a decent and coherent response!
Note: The first paragraph of the post is messed up..not sure why.