Here are the results of the poll.
Should The ADHA Sponsor And Fund The Introduction Of A National Clinical Information Access Program (CIAP) For Journal Articles, Guidelines, etc. Like Presently Offered In NSW?
Yes 12% (17)No 79% (112)
I Have No Idea 9% (12)
Total votes: 141
I was surprised as this result emerged and so I asked for comments. What I heard back, and correct me if I am wrong, was the vast majority view was that a national program of this sort was a great idea that would be compromised by the ADHA having carriage of it.
This has a bit of the feel of the perfect being the enemy of the pretty good or the Greens opposing action on Climate Change because it was not strong enough.
Is that what most of you think of the proposal?
Any insights welcome as a comment.
A great turnout of votes!
Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted!
David.
7 comments:
I understand and appreciate your view David. I support a national CAIP, one that is fully open to the public. My reservation with this being the ADHA is simply that I am yet to have it demonstrated that they are open and transparent and consistently so, or that the ADHA has the capability or capacity to run such a service. The ADHA is implementation and integration focused.
There are other organisations capable of doing this, or perhaps a new entity could be established, one that has purpose and can provide open acccess to clinical information and resources to support evidence-based practice at the point of care. I would also award such an entity the additional scope to provide broad coverage and investment oversight for standards and orchestration of nationally agreed architecture and conformance.
The ADHA has not eveolved into what I first thought, and it is not longer technology neutral, the recent MyHR statics show they are struggling with even basic quality controls. It also I believe needs an inderpendant assurance body overseeing it, the DTA is not the right body, it is simply forcused on technology and Agile.
Happy to be proved wrong and interested in others views.
8:09 AM, not a bad suggestion (setting up a new body)
Completely unrelated (or not) I found this an interesting insight from those involved at the coalface of MyHR adoption - http://trainitmedical.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Top-30-eHealth-questions-doctors-ask-about-My-Health-Record-with-Katrina-Ottos-responses-v2-March-2016-Train-IT-Medical.pdf
Yes David, for me it was simply the entity you put forward for carriage. Looking at the result I am seemingly not alone, not the indictment I thought would be the case 18 months ago.
Interesting document from Katrina Otto, it probably contains more information in one place (not necessarily all correct) than the government provides.
One question that I still have never adequately seen answered is: "why is MyHR better than direct access to GP's systems?" for a start it is almost zero cost, does not create a massive privacy/security honey-pot, is zero extra work and provides access to more data.
Section 13 raises some questions:
"It is just a list of documents, they are static and will quickly go out of date.
Yes, test results, discharge summaries, medication lists etc all go out of date quickly. As they do when we receive them on paper. My Health Record will alert us to changes so we can update the patient’s health summary.
I think of it like online banking, our transactions quickly go out of date and are replaced with new ones but we still want them all listed. We use filters and searches to find important information quickly. It really is fast to upload an updated health summary or event summary when something changes for a patient. I watch how fast GPs print a script these days and it takes about the same time to upload as that. I can see how uploading a new health summary will become embedded in the clinical routine like generating computerised prescriptions has. "
On line banking is totally different. The data does not go out of date. Your current balance is always your current balance and is relied on to be 100% accurate.
And doctors are supposed to review all the other data in the patient’s MyHR to ensure consistency. Uploading a SHS is only fast because doctors are not doing the required due diligence.
And "My Health Record will alert us to changes so we can update the patient’s health summary." How are these changes detected? Automatically? I think not. Anyway, who is "we"?
And there’s far more to a health summary than the pathetic amount of medical data in the MyHR’s predefined format.
Apart from those few things, some of what Katrina says is true.
Agree Bernard this fixation that a transactional and highly codable industry can be transplanted to healthcare, the only similarities is both seem driven by merchant bankers.
I disagree with this bit. "... both seem driven by merchant bankers.
I think it is driven by the hubris of management consultants and technology zealots, neither of whom understand the practice of medicine and/or the fundamentals concepts of automation. They are, however, attracted to the sparkling glitter of modern technology, as moths to a flame.
5:41, are you using cockney slang as a hidden meaning (which would not immediately strike a cord down under) or are referring to this (which again would not be well known) - https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/tamasin-cave/tim-telstra-and-tech-takeover-of-nhs
Post a Comment