From Senate Estimates the night before last....
"Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Could I just give you a copy of this article. It is 'Experts brand e-health audit trail as "gobbledygook"'. Did you see that article?
Mr Fleming: I am aware of it from a little while ago.
Ms Halton: This is the infamous David More, the well-known blogger. 'E-health consultant and medico Dr David More', otherwise known as the well-known blogger.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: You have not actually heard what my question was going to be.
Ms Halton: No. I have not seen before.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: It is about the audit trail. Are you questioning Dr More just because he is a serial blogger?
Ms Halton: I was just reading the second paragraph, so I know can what this is about.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Are you saying his comments should be dismissed?
Ms Halton: I have not even got to the next part of the comment.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: I will let you read it. That would be good.
Ms Halton: We might let the chief information and knowledge officer start talking while I read."
Seems someone is reading. Further coverage on things that matter in all this next week.
Not sure how you can blog without doing it "serially"?
David.
Serial blogger.... Hmmm a bit like a serial killer. Reminds me of spicks$specks. Is this guy a musician or a serial blogger? 'Dave the Blogger'!!!! Seen in the dark alleys of cyberspace...
ReplyDelete"the infamous David More" should read..
ReplyDelete"the infamous David More"... and the local e-health patient advocacy, standards, professional and industry bodies.
As for the definition:
Infamous: Well known for some bad quality or deed.
Not as far as I am concerned David, keep up the good work. However we don't have to look too far to see that definition being manifested on the taxpayer now in the form of a hundred million dollar system with no useable clinical information in it four months after go live. Also costing 47 million in support over two years, nice work if you can get it.
Keep it up David, at least Mr Fleming is reading the blog!
ReplyDeleteMr Madden: No. We only ever had issues with the apostrophes. We did not have issues with the hyphens.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: Well, Mr Madden, I had a problem with hyphens.
(I am imagining this last bit in a 'you are no Jack Kennedy tone). LOL.
The prevarication is unbelievable in the Hansard transcripts. The shameless dropping of the 500,000k sign up target which was etched in blood in the budget papers. The shameless recasting of failure and delay as a journey of discovery, which we all had planned for from the beginning.
Well if you had planned for this you never would have promised 500,000 registrations would you?
Liars.
Mr Fleming and Ms Halton may be reading, but are they paying attention? Methinks not...., more's the pity (no pun intended!)
ReplyDeleteCan anyone seriously believe the nonsense that these people put up at Senate Estimates. I've just read the transcripts and all of them at DoHA are living in wallyworld. The sad thing is that none of the senators seriously challenge it!! Fleming said that the contract with IBM had been terminated re NASH - went through to the keeper. Why weren't they grilled over that and asked to explain about the amount of money that has been wasted on it?
ReplyDeleteInfamous ? What an insult! Perhaps you should sue for defamation. Surely a leading public servant would not defame an honest blogger? Perhaps she meant 'in, famous blogger'. Or perhaps she wants us all to be intrigued and seek out your blog?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I don't think they will ever get the numbers of consumers or providers to register to make this system a goer. They made some big errors:
ReplyDeleteThey thought the hi service was up and running and ready;
They got Nash wrong and late;
They thought that there was no need to register providers, and had to patch in an interim provider component at the last minute;
They were very late with design, and underestimated the impact on the integration specifications- causing recall of faulty specs, and many changes, and big delays to the ability of software vendorsand sites to conform.
They thought that it would be easy to sign up the consumers from the lead sites, but many of these have still not gone fully live- the pcehr is effectively the 'lead site'.
They thought the Medicare data would be useful- when we can all see it already in Medicare.
Instead of admitting it was not ready, they pushed ahead with an empty shell and very bad bugs. To go live on July 1. We all may have forgiven them if they waited a few months.
If you weren't such a reasonable and tolerant person, you might see the use of the word 'infamous' as sailing close to the slander and libel (via Hansard) wind.
ReplyDeleteIt is always difficult to read messages that point out that what we are doing is not having the intended beneficial results. Hopefully readers of your blog who are employed in the public service will be able to overcome this natural tendency to reject bad news, and use the information and views that you publish to help to guide changes to what is being done and how it is being done, so that the investment of our (the public's) money achieves something useful.
If the NASH contract with IBM was terminated, and life including the nehrs goes on without it, then was it ever needed? We were told it was one of the reasons that nehrs was delayed... Yet Medicare had an alternative already built in their back pocket. Why do tax payers keep having to pay twice for what seem to be incompetent decisions?
ReplyDeleteYes, she does not react well to needles under her finger nails. When she is "in charge" the fortress appears impregnable. When the draw bridge is down her responses are an interesting study in human behaviour!
ReplyDeleteOh, I see, now I understand, its a deliberate slow uptake and we are being really careful and cautious, not advertising it but just letting it grow naturally. Very smart move, silly infamous me.
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps one of you can tell us:
a. why we are paying 47 million dollars, or 4000 per head, in a support contract for a system that has no real clinical content is hardly used by anyone north, south, east or west of the Black Stump!
b. Does this mean that the support cost will go up in proportion when the rush comes later?
c. Why did we need this big bang approach if we are deliberately looking for a slow uptake?
Oh and where is the travelling e-health truck these days?
I'm sorry but nice try, no sale!
Dear Minister
Give these incompetents the sack and don't ever let them build anything again, ever, never , ever!
They have wasted this money and done some considerable harm to the local industry too, give them the boot.
Instruct the department to listen to the wealth of skill and advice present in the local health sector, not just their top end of town mates.
Shake this embarrassment off and start behaving sensibly from now on in, at least that will avoid the embarrassment of them creaming off this for the next 10 years whilst it contains no health records.
Seriously, the game needs to be lifted, ask the local ehealth industry/professional/advocacy/standards bodies now, consult them immediately and fix this embarrassment now before its too late. Please take their advice, don't rebuff it, you will then have a higher probability of something useful being done for patients benefit.
Omg surely the contract with the pcehr vendor is based on volumes of registrations, or even on successful integration with clinical systems? Surely those pcehr system vendors have not been allowed to build a risk-free gold mine with guaranteed annual income just to sit there wasting electricity and floor space with a couple of big servers? It can't be true, or there would be a major scandal and a serious investigation! Perhaps we can hire more consultants to do a review- are there any left that can provide an objective opinion?
ReplyDelete"As for the definition:
ReplyDeleteInfamous: Well known for some bad quality or deed."
I don't think that describes this blog or its blogger. It sounds more like those responsible for the Never Eventuating Health Record System to me.
NEHRS: Never Ending Health Record Scandal
ReplyDeleteWhat are the new targets for the NEHRS - how will we know if it is a success or not- and I don't mean from a consultant perspective...
ReplyDeleteHow many registrations?
How many views by clinicians?
How many good news stories?
How much saved time?
How many better decisions?
NEHRS: Never Ending High Revenue Source
ReplyDeleteanonymous said
ReplyDelete"Omg surely the contract with the pcehr vendor is based on volumes of registrations, or even on successful integration with clinical systems?"
High Performance Undelivered
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-95.htm
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/09/28/accenture_failure_success/
NEHRS. Niggle Evade Hide Ridicule Side-step
ReplyDeleteNEHRS: New EHR Has Revealed Stupidity
ReplyDelete