Here are the results of the poll.
Holiday Poll : Is The Idea Of A National E-Health Records System Basically An Impractical And Expensive Nonsense?
Yes 76% (129)No 19% (32)
I Have No Idea 5% (8)
Total votes: 169
Again a pretty decisive poll. It seems most readers are not all that enthusiastic about the concept of the PCEHR.
Good to see such a great number of responses!
Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted!
David.
Note: Normal blogging will return next week if it seems anything is happening!
D.
What sort of response would you get if you rephrased the question to read:
ReplyDeleteShould Australia invest in the development of a secure, trusted, functional, integrated network of health service providers which is designed to support and encourage the seamless exchange and sharing of current, accurate health record information that is quickly and easily accessible, accurate and relevant, and able to be relied upon by all health service providers to support patient care?
We can find out next week..
ReplyDeleteDavid
January 11, 2016 3:37 PM encapsulates the essence of a national eHealth strategy.
ReplyDeleteIMHO it forms the very foundation of what the Government has been attempting to do ever since NeHTA was first established. That the project was led astray by excessive zeal and hubris emanating from within NeHTA and by mismanagement and poor communication within the Department and NeHTA, all sustained by a combination of poor advice from some highly paid doctors and a few big 'name' consulting firms, does not in itself mean that the Government should not now be trying to find iterative ways to get the My Health Record Project (PCEHR) back on the rails if possible; irrespective of the complexity of the task ahead.
They (DoH and NEHTA) have been messing about for a decade...how long do we give them before getting rid of the lot of them?
ReplyDeleteDavid.
... and replacing them with what?
ReplyDeleteExactly - good question Jan 11. It's so easy for the naysayers to say get rid of the lot of them but that's not very helpful unless the proponents of such radical thinking can come up with a really compelling and viable alternative. You see, eHealth development depends on solid long term funding and that has to come from Government. The private sector wouldn't be prepared to incur the risk. Also, among the hordes of people currently involved in eHealth, in the Department and in NEHTA, there are some individuals with excellent skills and expertise which must be identified and retained - not just simply "got rid of"!! So rather than saying "get rid of them", how about proposing something a little more positive and constructive.
ReplyDeleteTry replacing them with some experts who have a proven track record might help! None there now seem to be of any use...
ReplyDeleteDavid.
Have you forgotten David that over the years NEHTA retained various experts as Clinical Leads but that didn't seem to get the right result. Also past AMA and RACGP Presidents have previously been enlisted to undertake reviews, establish clinical lead teams and Chair NEHTA. And NEHTA has also retained other 'experts' to advise it all to no avail. What sort of experts do you have in mind and where might they come from?
ReplyDeleteIt progressed pretty well before the government came along and said "I am here to help". Its now such a hive of hubris and defensive behavior that failure is not an option. Well it has failed but public admission of failure is not an option. This is a brain dead patient in intensive care that is getting lots of expensive care with no hope of long term recovery. eHealth will not die without them, In fact the rest of the down trodden eHealth sector can actually get on doing things that work. eHeath in Australia was not started by government and the $2Billion spent has if anything slowed it down. If there are capable people being suppressed within NEHTA then they will find work in the real world. Its time to stop beating a dead horse. Its not as if eHealth is a thing they 'have', that will die if they go away. In fact they never quite knew what they were looking for and certainly never found much of use.
ReplyDeleteAnon - none of the experts were actual experts in e-Health and Heath IT. That is what was and is needed.
ReplyDeleteBeing a doctor or IT PhD does not make you useful for health IT!
David.
none of the experts were actual experts in e-Health and Heath IT.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case then where are the experts? and Who are they?
Not hard at all. Start with all those who are members or fellows of ACHI or who have the HISA CHIA qualification.
ReplyDeleteAFAIK no NEHTA or DoH staff were so qualified when the PCEHR was designed and planned.
Very few have been involved since...
David.
You can have all the experts in the world but if you don't use them what's the value? It was a case of opportunists in leadership roles, would not have them running an IT department let along national infrastructure
ReplyDeleteExperts are so negative - always pointing out what's wrong, why things won't work, all those potential problems and risks. Much better to do without them and just carry on mindlessly, implementing simplistic, useless dangerous solutions.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the 21st century's public service.
Anon January 11, 2016 6:38 PM yes there will be some talented and skilled people. Weak managers shy away from A-level talent and feel threatened, this results in lack of productivity, creativeness innovation and retension. There is now multiple layers of this problem and the pattern will continue resulting in weak executives championing weak managers that follow blindly at the cost of real talent. Hopefully there are talented people reshaping ACeH and can reverse that culture, then they might be ready to engage the health community
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues is that the technology is not ready to do what is needed and needs to be allowed to mature and evolve until it gets there. The sad thing about NEHTA and DOHA is that the try and lock everyone into technologies that are not mature and don't achieve the aim and really try and quash any innovation because they want to hide the fact that they spent $2 Billion on something that was not mature. Having someone work out issues and show a mature solution is now not something they will allow. Overseas there were and are plenty of examples of how to waste a fortune, but rather than wait they decided to be "fast followers" and waste $AUD so they could join the club. On a GDP basis us wasting $2 Billion is similar to the UK wasting 12 million pounds, maybe we have outdone them in fact. Well done as Sir Humphrey would say.
ReplyDelete