These appeared at the ADHA site a day or so ago:
Clinical Forum - The Role of Healthcare in Co-Designing Australia's Digital Health Strategy
Created on Friday, 10 February 2017
At this important forum on Thursday 23 February 2017, we will present what the Agency’s role is in progressing digital health to 2022, plus discuss the role Healthcare Professionals needs to play to reach this common goal.
The Executive General Managers will share the emerging themes derived from the national consultation and provide the clinical audience with an opportunity to discuss and refine the themes - in doing so ensure the final strategy will be one we agree sets out the direction of digital health for Australia.
More here:
and
Industry Forum - The Role of Industry in Co-Designing Australia's Digital Health Strategy
Created on Friday, 10 February 2017
We'd like to invite you to discuss what the Australian Digital Health Agency's role could be in progressing digital health to 2022, and to explore the role of industry in delivering our shared vision in the industry forum on Thursday 23 February 2017.
The Agency's Executive General Managers will take the opportunity to share the emerging themes from our national consultation and request industry to help us refine the themes - in doing so ensure the final Digital Health Strategy will be one we all agree sets out the direction of digital health for Australia.
We're seeking your input on where industry would like the Australian Government and our jurisdictions to invest in digital health.
More here:
Two comments from the blog a day or so ago (Friday 10 February, 2017) frame the challenge:
First we have:
Andrew McIntyre said...
When you set goals (ie Gov $$) the software drifts to those goals, but surely user experience and workability are important. The government goals should be patient safety through compliance with consensus standards and not artificial targets like government created standards that are unproven. Driving systems to comply with government mandated or bankrolled new standards will reduce usability. Currently we have poor compliance with standards actually in use and no government pressure to fix the problems in what is in actual use. Instead vendors are forced to divide their time between government mandated new creations, with unproven value, and usability for users, rather than a requirement to do what they already do safely and make systems usable. I am not sure I can identify one government initiated target in the last 15yrs that has yielded any long term value. They have spent $2 billion achieving zinch to date.
By setting targets that are of unproven value we actually reduce the safety and usability of medical software. That’s the sad story of the last 15 years. More of I'm from the government and I am here to help! Unintended consequences abound.
By setting targets that are of unproven value we actually reduce the safety and usability of medical software. That’s the sad story of the last 15 years. More of I'm from the government and I am here to help! Unintended consequences abound.
And second we have:
Anonymous said...
Andrew McIntyre - congratulations - please go to the top of the class. Government should be nurturing and supporting vendors; instead Government impedes them with strategies designed to compete with them, undermine their viability and divert them from what they do well. The bureaucracy is destroying our home grown health software industry.
"Vendors are forced to divide their time between government mandated new creations, with unproven value, and (unproven) usability for users, rather than a requirement to do what they already do safely and make systems (increasing more) usable. I am not sure I can identify one government initiated target in the last 15yrs that has yielded any long term value. They have spent $2 billion achieving zinch to date."
"Vendors are forced to divide their time between government mandated new creations, with unproven value, and (unproven) usability for users, rather than a requirement to do what they already do safely and make systems (increasing more) usable. I am not sure I can identify one government initiated target in the last 15yrs that has yielded any long term value. They have spent $2 billion achieving zinch to date."
What these commenters are saying is that clinicians and the industry have watched the last decade or so with NEHTA etc. there has been a breach of trust and confidence which is going to take more than six months to be resolved.
It will take time, transparency and a great deal of consistent delivery that respects all the other stakeholders interests to resolve what has been a pretty painful experience.
David.
It is very telling how poorly the CEO is at building an enterprise. One states what the Agency role will be, the other what the Agency role might be. Now if he can't even line-up two narratives and General Managers then how do we expect to line-up all the actors, perspective and share equally in the outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAs one news outlet put it - a bit amateurish. As a tax payer I think it is time the books and plans were openly published I am very concerned
BULLSEYE - herein lies the nub of the problem
ReplyDelete1. "what the Agency role will be"
2. "what the Agency role might be"
These two positioning statements lead to numerous questions which will be of great concern to anyone who thinks carefully about what is being said here.
Again, its a matrix parody. They met the architect and the matrix was restarted and Neo has to go through it all again. What they are saying if you read between the lines, is that NEHTA left nothing of value so we are going to start again from the beginning and work out what this eHealthy thingy is all about. They could write the idiots guide to spending $2 Billion and having nothing to show for it. Generic management will destroy our society. If you don't know what to do they doing nothing is a much better idea. People are to easily fooled by the glossy brochure and the "We are the experts" hubris. There is no substance and never will be. If Malcolm is looking for budget savings this one is staring him in the face. Downgrade it to 5 people with technical expertise and come back to us when you have worked out whats going on!
ReplyDeleteNot sure about Neo, he reminds me more and more of a Kevin Rudd figure. Either way he is there to deliver an extension the the Health Record thing. I note the new CEO for Telstra Health is Mary Foley, someone that was believed to be the preferred ADHA leader, perhaps the early surprises around Tims appointment are related to last minutes 'thanks but no thanks'
ReplyDeleteRe: 3.38 please clarify - are you suggesting here that Mary F was offered the role and with great insight ever so wisely rejected the offer?
ReplyDeleteI think this is very disappointing. What is all this telling us about the ADHA?
ReplyDeleteThe ADHA wants to know “where industry would like the Australian Government and the jurisdictions to invest in digital health”. How can this be so? For at least a decade the Industry has been telling the Government and the Jurisdictions where and how to invest in digital health. The Government, Department and NEHTA, have paid plenty of lip service, held numerous consultations, called for an abundance of submissions, but they have not listened and if they have heard they have not bothered to heed the advice. Why would it be any different now?
Refining the ‘themes’ at the Forum with some ‘involvement’ from Industry is meant to ensure a ‘final’ Digital Health Strategy will ‘emerge’ to become one ‘we’ (those attending from Industry) will all agree on thereby setting the direction for digital health in Australia. The ADHA’s inference here is that the ‘themes’ are correct! Are they valid? Correct? Realistic?
Does the ADHA not understand that a Forum of Industry Representatives (talkfest) will not deliver an appropriate outcome? Is the ADHA incapable of preparing and circulating a highly credible DRAFT strategy for industry to work with and refine? A think-tank of Industry Representatives is the best way to iteratively develop a strategy. A Forum is NOT a think-tank.
The ADHA wants to ‘discuss’ with Industry what the ADHA’s role could (should) be in progressing digital health to 2022! Do they have no clarity vision? Do they have no precise objectives? Do they not know what their role is or should be? Industry can only hope the ADHA will come to the Forum with 10 bullet points that specifies precisely the role of the ADHA and reach agreement with Industry about that as the very first step.
5:03. I am simply stating leading upto the transition it was rumoured the an AG would take charge and the likely candidate was Mary. As to a wise move or not that is pure speculation on my part.
ReplyDeleteNEHTA was full of IT people, so they built an IT system - that hasn't delivered. ADHA is full of people who don't know anything about IT or eHealth so is it surprising they are getting nowhere?
ReplyDeleteClearly another self-serving bureaucracy?
ReplyDeleteIt is still the same bureaucracy, NEHTA was taken down the PCEHR route and was forced to abandon many things like architecture, standards, secure messaging etc. We have the same bureaucracy being lead by a new but just as clueless salesman on a crusade. This is a shame. Get off the BS paper and fax excuse and get visionary and create the right resources at a national level where everyone can benefits equally.
ReplyDeleteI am know doctor but I beleive if you don't clean the wound properly the infection soon returns.
Re: February 15, 5:42 PM and February 15, 7:07 PM the ADHA has a great opportunity to prove what it really can do at the 23 February Forum in Melbourne. All being well, ADHA's General Managers will receive a standing ovation from everyone attending.
ReplyDeleteDear February 15, 2017 7:07 PM you are so sceptical. You need to have a look at the Pharmacy Partnership Funding Offer announced a few days ago by ADHA. It is intended that it will deliver a comprehensive Medication Management Record. Perhaps then you will change your views about the ADHA. Don't you think this time they might get somewhere?
ReplyDelete3:01 I have looked at the said proposition, which but if detail are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteI applaud the intent but it is to earlier to declare a victory or defeat. There are many challenges ahead not least the inclusion of AMT which I think might have been better left out, there is also the question of what happens when the incentive is removed, will a sustainable model remain?
I have to agree with 6:06 in part, we all (ADHA included) needed to take careful steps and not get overly excited and claim victory at the start of something, nor be overly pessimistic in these early stages. There are many new people and many will more than likely be on a journey, discovering it is a lot more complex at the national level and far more difficult to enable systems to co-exist and manage the many interested parties.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to see a few mis- fires go through to the wicket keeper so long as the learn and grasp the challenges of the next 10-20 years and not get trapped in the app and short terms solution domain, that is easy work and not what we need IMHO from a national agency.
So long as the listen and don't preach and realise that there are winners and losers and there is no shame if you can't scale there are other careers.
It is intended that it will deliver a comprehensive Medication Management Record.
ReplyDeleteIntent is not enough. Delivery is what matters. The Federal Government consistently fails to achieve what it says it is trying to achieve.
February 17, 2017 7:52 PM no-one disagrees with you. But so what are you trying to say? hat in your view is required to ensure delivery is successful?
ReplyDelete