This appeared last week.
Have your say on the Health Information Workforce Census
Your participation will assist in Australia’s digital health workforce planning.Be part of the first Australian Health Information Workforce Census
24 April 2018
Are you part of Australia’s health information workforce? Do you work in, or are actively seeking work in, a role related to developing or managing health information? Hint: If you’re reading #Share, you almost certainly are!
If so, you should consider participating in the Health Information Workforce Census, which is being conducted by the University of Tasmania, the University of Melbourne, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and a host of other organisations. The purpose of this census is to count and delineate the current health information workforce in Australia, and to identify career pathways and future training and support needs for the sector.
As with any census, maximum levels of participation will lead to better quality data and more reliable forecasts. As a #Share reader, we encourage you to participate, and also to help promote the census in your workplace with the promotional materials available on site.
Here is the link:
https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/news-and-events/news/have-your-say-on-the-health-information-workforce-census
Enough said I reckon.
David.
8 comments:
Or they could go along to this:
https://www.npc.org.au/speakers/tim-kelsey/
'Your Health in Your Hands – the Digital Evolution of Health and Care in Australia'
Wonder what he might be talking about?
Presentations at the National Press Club (24/5) and release of the Secondary Use Framework without a chance for comment on the final proposals and the apparent ignoring of the ADHA's own press embargos all leaking out in the last few days.
Prepare to be dazzled and horrified I reckon with opt-out etc. and a vast litany of evidence free assertions Real Soon Now!
David,
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder for ADOHA
ICYMI, the government is proposing to enact the Identity Services Bill 2018. The Australian Human Rights Commission, have some concerns:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/identity-matching-bills-threaten-our-rights
There are some interesting statements in this article which may have parallels in the case of myhr.
"If the bills were passed in their current form, the personal information of innocent people would end up being used by law enforcement, Commissioner Santow told the Joint Committee. “The way the face identification service will work, innocent people almost certainly will appear as suspects in criminal investigations with all of the consequences that flow from that,” he said."
and
"A centralised system of personal information can create a so called ‘honeypot’ of biometric data that, if compromised, massively increases the risk of identity theft."
The Australian Human Rights Commission were not impressed withe the 2016 opt-out trials.
https://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Joint-Parliamentary-Committee-into-Human-Rights-Final-Report-on-Adult-Register-Bills-01-December-2015.pdf
See the section on the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015 (page 65)
"2.89 The committee also notes the minister's statement that the move to automatically upload everyone's personal health records onto the national database is 'likely to improve privacy' for individuals, as it will decrease reliance on paper records. However, it is not apparent that including all personal health data on a centralised national database would better protect privacy – information on government databases also run the risk of being inappropriately accessed, and including more personal information that can be accessed by more people is not likely to improve the right to privacy for individuals."
Keep your eyes open and join the dots
Someone somewhere at some conference or workshop stated those beneficial claims in a power point. That is evidence. Referring to the news about twitter seemingly exposing users details in plain text for all to see and use must surely indicate that when IT fails it fails catastrophically. There is another price of evidence in the UK, the UK minister for health had explained that due to error(s) in their cancer screening systems algorithms it is estimated some 270 woman lives were cut short and half a million woman did not receive notifications for screenings.
Now I am far from against HIT, but all this over stating the good without discussing the risks is simply misleading the public and setting expectations that may not be a reflection of reality.
But as an earlier post says - evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Given the weasel words in the disclaimer
https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/disclaimer
and the terms-of-use
https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/policies/website-terms-of-use
I though, maybe the legislation would more reliable and trustworthy.
Here are the My Health Records (National Application) Rules 2017 which enable the national opt-out program.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01558/Download
re the comment about evidence by a previous contributor, in the explanatory statement it says
"An evaluation of the trials showed a high level of support by healthcare providers and individuals for the automatic creation of My Health Records, and found that individuals felt the benefits far outweighed the possibility of risks to privacy, confidentiality and security. As a result, the Government decided to implement the My Health Record system as an opt-out system for individuals."
There is no qualification for "healthcare providers and individuals". That could mean two healthcare providers and two individuals had a high level of support.
It's also worth noting that "an opt-out system for individuals" only means registration or individuals, it doesn't mean providers have to opt-out or that anybody (individuals or providers) has to use the system by either uploading data or by using data in the practice of medicine.
The section at the end of the explanatory statement addresses human rights and concludes:
"The Legislative Instrument is compatible with human rights because it advances the right to health. Any limitation of the right to privacy is proportionate, necessary and reasonable to achieving improved healthcare for Australians. Increased use of the My Health Record system, which will occur as a result of opt-out arrangements, will result in a number of privacy positives compared to use of paper-based records."
which is interesting in that it is comparing myhr with paper records, not with modern clinical systems.
As has been expressed many times on this blog, an alternative, distributed, none government owned system (similar to those in the UK and Sweden) that permitted appropriate access to GP's and hospital systems would be much better in that it would not impose an extra workload on health professionals, would be more complete and more up-to-date and be far more reliable in times of emergency and system load.
It also would not have cost $2b. But there is a downside. It would be far more difficult to include health care data in the MADIP initiative and for the Department of Health to relate MBS/PBS data with health care activities and thus monitor health care expenditure.
Does this ring any bells?
https://www.themandarin.com.au/92230-its-official-power-creates-a-narcissist/
Surprised they couldn’t manage to link it to climate change. Still the Big Bang will happen come July and it is evident from loose lips that the secondary use ship will be setting sale. I guess it is the moment of truth - can the government PDF store actually output information of any use? If they can’t in 12 months then they never will
Post a Comment