Sunday, November 19, 2017

AusHealthIT Poll Number 397 – Results – 19th November, 2017.

Here are the results of the poll.

Does Firm Bipartisan Political Support And Near Unlimited Funding Mean The myHR Will Ultimately Be A Success Despite Its Flaws?

Yes 4% (5)

No 95% (117)

I Have No Idea 1% (1)

Total votes: 123

It seems the vast majority do not think the myHR can overcome its fundamental flaws despite the Government enthusiasm and lots of money.

Any insights welcome as a comment, as usual, especially regarding what might be done to have the present system changed, updated or whatever and have something more useful brought forward and implemented.

A great turnout of votes!

Again we note a sole respondent who is clueless!

Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted!

David.

Note: If you want to suggest another option on the Standards Poll this week please comment here!

D.

6 comments:

john scott said...

David,

I suggest we need to start with a blank sheet of paper and take a longer-term perspective. Whatever replaces the current suite of strategies has to be compelling and provide sufficient traction to begin the new journey.

I suggest to that end that we begin describing what the way forward would be predicated upon.

Here are a few thoughts toward that end:

1. We need a new idea, a new narrative and solution framework that provides a place for all contributions;

2. The idea and narrative have to provide a compelling case for what will replace the current myopia in regard to the primacy of technology; that is, digital innovation driving health reform;

3. The approach has to be relevant to health and the sectors it is connected to, most notably, aged and community care in order to enable and support continuity of care and moving care to the community;

4. The approach must inform and enable and indeed be accountable for organized purposeful cooperation and collaboration at the sector level; this reflects the design of our health system and the reality of people moving across the health care landscape to receive care; the current governance arrangements leave the private sector of health without a voice;

5. The approach must demonstrate how the so-called 'interoperability' challenge will be met; this expression is from technology and reflects the absence of proper medical and wider clinical oversight of e-health policy and strategy;

6. The new idea and strategy has to provide a compelling case for COAG to support as the endorsing body.

7. The new way forward has to be able to take 'first steps' and demonstrate its value incrementally as opposed to inflicting another 'big bang' strategy on the sector and its members.

Anonymous said...

Here's a strategy:
Step 1.
ADHA realises that it doesn't have the answers - nobody does.
Step 2.
ADHA realises that MyHR is an impediment to progress.
Step 3.
ADHA gets out of the way.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is counter-productive to have COAG provide its support as the endorsing body for a compelling case for a new idea and strategy.

COAG represents jurisdictions and health department bureaucrats. They have been a root cause of NEHTA and ADHA's failures. As the Irishman said "if you want to succeed I wouldn't start with COAG and the jurisdictions".

Every artist starts with a blank canvas but not every artist succeeds like Bret Whitley, Jeffrey Smart and others. The blank canvas is fine until every potential stakeholder smears it with their paint. What is needed is a blank canvas and a few highly-skilled artists else the broth will be spoiled by too many cooks.

Tim Kelsey was presented with a blank canvas but he had no idea what paint to use.

Anonymous said...

Tim Kelsey was not presented with a blank canvas he was presented with MyHR. He doesn't have the skills, education or knowledge to understand what a lemon it is and how much trouble it will cause the government when it goes opt-out.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

Re November 19, 2017 10:45 AM: I’d phrase it a bit more diplomatically and in terms that the public service could more easily identify with.

The (in this context, Federal) government is not very good at innovating with and/or implementing new technology. The government has always been reluctant to pick winners and MyHR is a bad solution to an anachronistic problem – manual medical record keeping.

The government should do two things:

1. stop trying to lead in the development of more effective and efficient healthcare.

2. remove or reduce the barriers to innovation and change.

These two actions (while not simple, especially the second) should be designed to facilitate new models of healthcare, without the Federal government being a direct participant.

The way forward is not clear, therefore there needs to be an evolutionary, experimental, incremental, trial and error approach. Keep things small; this reduces the cost, time to market and the potential for problems with safety.

The one thing government can do is to provide an environment in which new ideas/concepts are discussed and results quickly promulgated.

MyHR was a big trial and has been a huge error – it’s just got in the way. The only lesson it might teach government is that it’s easy to do the wrong thing and get burnt. But don’t hold you’re breath.


Anonymous said...

I agree Bernard, I wonder just how frustrating the MyHR is for elements of Government. To me anyway it seems to also stifle Government is doing what it was setup to do and is the right institute to do these things. Strangely two of these things Kelsey blew out of the water.