Getting GPs onboard
The big picture
It is an interesting interview with a few slightly new insights into where the myHR is going.
It was interesting to hear the claim of both being evidence based while at the same time saying that in many areas the evidence for the myHR’s value and utility was pretty thin on the ground.
The most important paragraph in this section – in my mind - is this:
“A big reason for sinking endless dollars to prevent the My Health Record entering the crowded graveyard of IT failures has been the belief it will drastically cut medication errors, and along with that, the human misery and substantial cost of avoidable hospital admissions and unnecessary deaths.”
I would suggest that ‘drastically cutting medication errors’ and reducing hospital admissions are outcomes the myHR is uniquely architected NOT to be able to deliver! These outcomes are best delivered by live point of care systems and not a secondary, incomplete Government database.
It is really an evidence free perspective to keep thinking the myHR is a really useful tool that can return even a tiny fraction of the massive billion dollars of funds invested in benefits in the areas cited or, indeed, any others. Benefits for Health IT largely flow from provision of current up to date information at the point of care, supported by interactive decision support. The myHR does not, and never will, provide this type functionality.
More importantly cloud based real-time solutions can do all the myHR was ever imagined to do while adding the missing functions, doing it more cheaply, securely and safely. Time to cut the Government’s losses. In a recent poll most who read here felt the ‘pile of .pdfs’ approach was basically obsolete.
Sorry Tim, the sooner you look harder at the evidence and change course to a more sensible architecture the better. Right now I believe you are on a hiding to nothing! I am also happy to publish any evidence you have that convincingly demonstrates I am wrong. What about it Tim?