This appeared
a few days ago:
My Aged Care site criticised for wasting GPs' time
3 September
2015
THE new national gateway for
aged-care referrals is acting as a choke point for GPs trying to arrange care
for elderly patients, doctors say.
The My Aged Care website and
online referral system was to provide “equitable and timely access to aged care
assessments and make it easier for older people to find aged care services and
information”.
But major design flaws in the
system launched on 1 July are said to be wasting doctors’ time and causing
information about vulnerable patients to be lost.
Loss of information from GPs’
referrals is a “huge concern”, says Adelaide GP Dr Chris Bollen, who has taken
feedback from numerous practices about the system.
“There’s no way to know if your
referral has been accepted, and where it’s gone to, no read on
receipt function," he says.
“The GP referrals go to the
assessment team online. Then the next person takes that information and rings
the older person or their carer, then an assessment is made and a referral is
generated and sent to a regional assessment team or sometimes to a provider.
“But the original GP referral
stays with the My Aged Care people – it does not go to the end provider at
all.”
The RACGP has written to the
Department of Social Services seeking a number of improvements, including a
means of sending referrals electronically via a system that conforms to the
Secure Message Delivery (SMD) system.
“The website has created extra
and unnecessary work for general practitioners due to lack of front-line GP
input into the design and modus operandi,” RACGP president Frank Jones told
Medical Observer.
“Proactive consultation with the
profession would have saved time, effort and given the best outcome.”
The web-based system is not
compatible with GPs’ electronic clinical data systems, forcing doctors to
manually retype patient details to the new template in a “time-consuming and
unnecessary exercise”, Dr Jones says.
The RACGP said in its 11 August
letter to DSS: “To be useable in the context of general practice, online
methods of communication must link to or integrate with GPs’ electronic
clinical and administrative systems.
…..
After the RACGP released its
letter of concern publicly, the department responded yesterday with an
acknowledgment “that a seamless interface supporting GPs and aged care
providers is ideal”, Dr Jones said.
“The RACGP is supportive of an
online electronically based referral system for aged care and would welcome the
opportunity to work with government to improve processes,” he says.
The DSS has been
contacted for comment.
Tags:
More here:
Yet another
e-Health farce led by the Department of Health. How about some testing and a pilot or two to locate the issues before full implementation? Really all one can do is
despair!
David.
Well this portal's lack of functionality is not due to a lack of money ... a quick check of AusTender shows that around $24 million has been spent on it to date.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Social Services, which inherited this project from DoHA, has recently increased the value of its contract with service provider APIS to $12.8m, for the period Jan 2014 to June 2016; this started out at $4.26m so that's good going just 18 months into a 2.5-year contract.
APIS has been paid a further $5.6m for its work on this project, dating back to 2012. DoHA was responsible for almost all of the development work and contracts.
PwC pocketed $4.6m for change and benefits management; KPMG got $324,000 for "provision of options" for linking the service and Healthcare Management Advisors received $241,450 to develop a cost model for aged care assessment through the gateway (a DSS contract).
McGrathNicol did the probity advisory services for $148,500; Oakton helped out with additional support for $225,300, while a Talent business analyst earned $91,000 for six months work along with a Clicks recruit who made the tea for $19,300.
Interestingly, ThinkPlace Unit Trust was paid $79,420 to create an operational blueprint for the gateway in early 2013, another $32,180 in June to finalise the operations manual "to reflect increased scope", and in July another $32,180 to get it out the door, presumably.
Seems as though they didnt bother asking any doctors, aged care people or consumers....
BTW, a quick search of tenders for "portal" or "gateway" puts this one right up there with most expensive. And it doesn't work. Genius! From the people who brought us the PCEHR
Seems as though they didn't bother asking any doctors, aged care people or consumers....
ReplyDeleteI often wonder whether those responsible for such healthIT fiascos (heaven knows there is no shortage of them) have any idea who they are developing such systems for. Is it possible they have no idea what and who comprise their target market and potential users.
Or is it simply that they are just incapable of engaging with end users to ascertain their needs, incapable of asking questions or incapable of interpreting any information that is received if they do ask questions. Or perhaps it's simply that the air these people exist in is so rarefied that their brains, if they have any, are deprived of the vital oxygen required to sustain life.
@Dr Ian Colclough, those responsible are making these systems are to fit their own resumes, career paths and salaries, for the profits and publicity of their respective private sector and public sector/political Masters... One term some use to describe them is 'bottom feeders'. You can probably find many other appropriate synonyms... Even worse is that their Masters probably give political and campaign contributions for both sides of politics. A Walkley Award worth investigative journalism activity @Karen Dearne might look into, vastly more scandalous than the 7-Eleven Business Model (another frightening example of a false economy).
ReplyDelete