The question was:
How Well Do You Think The Submissions To The PCEHR Review Have Identified The Key Issues With The PCEHR That Will Determine The Overall Future Of The Program?
Excellently 0% (0)Pretty Well 18% (11)
Many Have Missed Some Key Issues 34% (21)
Most Have Totally Missed The Point 46% (28)
I Have No Idea 2% (1)
Total votes: 61
A very clear response indeed! Vast majority think the many of the submissions did not really address the key, core issues.
Again, many thanks to those that voted!
David.
3 comments:
So, what were the key issues that were largely overlooked?
In bullet point form please :)
Given:
(1) Terms of reference couched around improving the PCEHR ;
(2) that the chair of the enquiry stated at the outset that its intent was not to 'Kill off' the PCEHR ;
(3) the very short timelines for submission and reporting, suggesting that many of the outcomes were already determined ;
(4) a reported word limit on submissions ; and
(5) hints that material deemed not to be addressing the ToR would be ignored,
those submitting had an invidious choice between attempting to address the 'key issues' and proposing changes that might have had some chance of adoption. Perhaps it's not surprising that the submissions have not achieved perfection.
12/10/2013 12:20:00 AM provides a perfect summation. In particular (1) Terms of reference couched around improving the PCEHR excluded any other options. My conclusion at the time was another short sighted review aimed at sugar coating the disaster and perpetuating the status quo.
Post a Comment