Here are the results of the poll.
Is It Appropriate the Planned CEO of The Aust. Digital Health Agency Is Not Required To Have Specific E-Health Expertise And Experience?
Yes 22% (18)No 68% (55)
I Have No Idea 10% (8)
Total votes: 81
Again a pretty decisive poll. It seems most readers want some actual expertise to run the Digital Health Agency.
Good turnout for the silly season!
Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted in such a quiet week!
David.
2 comments:
The current question is a bit like "Should USA invest in a cure for cancer within 10 yrs" Its a question with a simple answer that's wrong. So I responded no to this question. I think the PCEHR was a result of someone in DOHA not understanding the problem and thinking there was a simple solution. Like life itself there are no simple solutions and evolution takes a very long time but comes up with unexpected elegant solutions, along with Kludges that work. The important think is that what evolves has to work, the PCEHR does not and this solution is a clone of it.
At the moment the PCEHR is the equivalent of the Ayran race in a bizzare Nazi experiment where administrators try and insist that the laws of nature be suspended because they have a "ministerial" insisting that it work. Tony Abbott could at least smell a rat, although his creation, NEHTA, turned out to be a Frankenstein.
I agree with Anonymous.
The problem starts with the question what is "accurate and relevant" health information? The X-Ray I had before my hip replacement was (probably) accurate and relevant. Now I have had the operation it is now no longer accurate and may or may not be relevant.
The big deficiency in the PCEHR is that all data in a health record is treated equally. Which means it is probably a mixture of inaccurate, irrelevant and incomplete and of little or no help clinically.
Patient health information is far more complex than that in just about any other domain.
Post a Comment