Tuesday, November 11, 2014
The Consumers Health Forum (CHF) Has A Dummy Spit And Reveals A Distorted View Of The Caring Professions.
We had an interesting, evidence free press release from the Consumer Health Forum (CHF) a few days ago.
3 November 2014 -
Many lives and billions of dollars, could be saved by personally-controlled electronic health records yet their full potential is threatened by self-interested doctors who wrongly claim they are putting patients’ interests first.
“There is widespread support for the introduction of a personally-controlled electronic health record, including from consumers, medical leaders and other providers, as revealed in the latest edition of CHF’s journal Health Voices, published today,” says CEO Adam Stankevicius. “Australia has already waited far too long for an effective national eHealth system --- more than ten years since government funding began in earnest.
----- End Extract.
Here is the link to the .pdf.
There is reporting here.
Date November 8, 2014 - 6:17PM
A patient advocacy group has accused doctors of being motivated by self-interest in arguing against patients having direct access to test results via electronic health records.
Pathology and diagnostic imaging reports will be able to be added to electronic health records in the next update of the system, due later this year.
Patients will be able to access these results following a seven-day delay, which is designed to give doctors time to manage communication of results with their patients.
But the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners is fighting the change, arguing that patients should not be able to access test results until they have been reviewed by the doctor who ordered them.
College president Frank Jones said doctors had a responsibility to first check the results of tests they had ordered.
"The College has no issue whatsoever with patients having access to their medical records ... it's how it happens that is our concern," he said.
In a statement this week, the college said it would sometimes be undesirable for patients to find out results before any discussion with their GP in which the doctor could provide contextual advice and support.
Lots more here:
Also we had this:
The RACGP has been told to ditch "self-interest" and stop blocking patients from prompt access to their pathology results.
The row is brewing over the decision to automatically upload virtually all pathology and diagnostic imaging results on to the PCEHR after seven days.
The college fears patients will learn they have serious conditions like melanomas or sexual diseases like chlamydia on the system before the GP has been able to contact them.
But the stance has outraged the Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF), which says that full potential of the e-health system is "threatened by self-interested doctors who wrongly claim they are putting patients' interests first".
In a media release entitled Doctors: the health evolution is here, move on or move out, the CHF CEO Adam Stankevicius said: "The RACGP is arguing against patients learning the results of path tests on 'safety' grounds, asserting that patients getting bad news before hearing it from them could be subject to ‘unnecessary distress'.
Lots more here:
I will choose to ignore the suggestion that doctors are pursuing ‘self - interest’ as I have no idea just what interest any doctor would have (except in very unusual circumstances) of not sharing patient results with the patient. What this seems to be is part of some CHF ‘Class War’ against doctors for the most obscure of ‘political’ reasons.
What I am even more amazed about is the first paragraph here:
“Many lives and billions of dollars, could be saved by personally-controlled electronic health records yet their full potential is threatened by self-interested doctors who wrongly claim they are putting patients’ interests first.”
Clearly there is no evidence of any sort that the PCEHR is working and it is at present just blind faith that it will in the future offer benefits that are being suggested.
Having results shared between pathologists, clinicians and their patients is the way it has always worked and it has worked pretty well.
Before just such an outrageous statement and claim for benefit is made - maybe the CHF might like to demonstrate just where the benefits claimed will come from over the present, already electronically enabled systems.
The magical thinking we see from groups like this, and the lack of evidence offered, makes one wonder why anyone would take the CHF seriously.
Posted by Dr David G More MB PhD at Tuesday, November 11, 2014