Friday, November 29, 2013

Some Compelling Analysis Of The PCEHR Submissions So Far.

This arrived via e-mail and I am publishing it with permission.


Comments on the PCEHR can be grouped into three categories

1. From those with a vested interest in seeing the PCEHR in a favourable

2. From those concerned with the functional details, but who don’t
understand the real weaknesses of the system

3. From those concerned with the fundamentals – the state of the
information in the system

By far the most critical are those comments from multiple commentators
that the information in the PCEHR is unreliable, un-trustworthy,
incomplete and could potentially do harm.

Professor Enrico Coiera sums it up with this:

“The PCEHR like any healthcare technology may do good or harm. Correct
information at a crucial moment may improve care. Misleading, missing or
incorrect information may lead to mistakes and harm. There is clear
evidence nationally and internationally that health IT can cause such harm.”

He then goes on to detail multiple safety risks in the current PCEHR.

Professor Enrico Coiera’s opinion is supported by others and they all go
to the crux of the problem with the PCEHR – trust and risk, or more
importantly, the lack of them.

The sooner the PCEHR is taken off line the better. Health and NEHTA have
been warned by people far more knowledgeable than they are that there is
a significant safety risk. If harm results from use of the PCEHR, they
had better have a good defence lined up.

This is a useful way to frame what you read.

Many thanks for sending it along!



Eric Browne said...

Healthbase Australia now has a page of links to PCEHR Review submissions:-

Anonymous said...

David the good Professor touches on TRUST, but does not drill down deep enough into the underlying issues associated with what the term TRUST really means..

However, at least he touched on it..

Anonymous said...

I am reminded of your prescient Blog from 7 years ago - dated Thursday, December 21, 2006

NEHTA’s Contraction of Scope and Role – What does it Mean?

The key messages were:
1. The National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) has been established to …..

2. However NEHTA seems to have moved away from this …..

3. It seems that NEHTA no longer sees itself as having a direct role in accelerating the adoption and use of Health IT, …….

4. The change in emphasis is of very considerable concern ……

5. NEHTA has now become a “dead hand” on innovation and progress in e-health in Australia. …….

And now, in the year of our Lord 2013, may I suggest that NEHTA continues to be a “dead hand” on innovation and progress in e-health in Australia. …….

Dr David More MB PhD FACHI said...

Heavens! Was it that long ago? Way too many sleeps since then.

Grateful for the memories!


Anonymous said...

NEHTA, a classic example of management and administration, where what is required is leadership.

Management and administration only require process and procedure.

Leadership requires knowledge, skill, competence, innovation and an ability to think into the future.