Saturday, May 12, 2018

The ADHA Board Has Now Officially Moved Into Its Sixth Month Of Radio Silence!

The arrogance is just breathtaking! That they treat their major stakeholder (the public) like this shows how worried we should all be about their opt-out and secondary use plans.

They are managing to well and truly confirm the result of this week's poll!

Pretty pathetic!

David.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just confirms the many reports that the ADHA is a disaster waiting to happen rather than the promised organisation of harmonious and fined tuned culture and process. Perhaps the board is ashamed to publish in case transparency exposes the complete mess we have in the ADHA. The AIHW being trusted with secondary use over the ADHA along with so many other ‘digital health’ projects not going the ADHA speaks volumes.

That of there take the position the public like children should be seen and not heard. After all we are just numbers to them.

Anonymous said...

That is simple David. The ADHA operates (term used very loosely) is a shambles, it has become a collection of independent divisions. This is simply out of need. Operationally after two years the basics are still left wanting. The real hassle we still have to deal with the root cause of the trouble because we cannot escape the cultural change people and have to recruit through HR. Why CEO, the Board and the executive overseeing operations does not sort it out is the biggest puzzlement.

Anonymous said...

As someone who recently departed I confirm the ADHA or Agency as they call themselves is a mess. Even leaving was a confused mess. I am glad they are not running secondary use the IT network is a security free zone, you still see nehta on all the systems and you have to login every time you want to access even the most basic systems. But then it is a leadership issue.

Anonymous said...

I must agree David, this is far below expectations. I was hoping there would be far more transparency and far more "real" engagements and consultations. I do appreciate the ADOHA had a mandate to push the MyHR to opt out but they have done it in such a closed manner coupled with a national tour of one off lectures and Twitter events it seems staged and with little heart to it.

The real cost maybe in a broken community and in reality I see little evidence the community at large takes much notice other than when they are paid to do so.

Like it or not, a lot on people in the ehealth game read this blog and contribute to it. I have witness some real conversations and people working through issues, sadly it is not supported by a national body where some good can come out of these conversations. The ADHA certainly does not address concerns raised, either publically or in many cases privately.

Blindly we go into the Framework for Action, where people with be objects to be spoken to, while the ADHA mafia move there various agendas forward with no regards to the community.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

eHR state of mind

http://zdoggmd.com/ehr-state-of-mind/
and read the text below the video.

Yes, I know it's promoted by athenahealth, but many a true word is spoken in jest.

IMHO, the message is that some eHRs are better than others. So ask yourself, what does myhr do for doctors, other than distract them from looking after their patients?

Anonymous said...

AnonymousMay 12, 2018 6:56 PM. I agree. It is Darren from a well run operation. The MHR expansion will come to a close soon as all good projects do. This will lead to another restructure. Everyone knows who has let the ADHA down and who had made a mockery of honesty, openness and transparency and that to work we must have a structural change at the senior leadership level. We can but hope things change and the ADHA is reshaped to meet to requirements of the next phase of work. I am sure it might be a difficult time for some as the current structures are built on questionable relationships.

Anonymous said...

It does seem rather odd the ADHA has become a closed shop, they started off in the right direction. Perhaps the Department has something to do with it? They certainly shut NEHTA down for communicating, maybe the Department is struggling with the concept of open government?

It would be nice to know what is going on with interoperability, or even its component parts like secure messaging or terminology?

Andrew McIntyre said...

The missing elephant in the room component of inter-operability is compliance for both senders and receivers and I don't see any progress on that front. ADHA appear not to be interested in that.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps ADHA do not see it as a problem for them to solve? On the subject I recall the tax payer funded a large SMD effort that delivered conformance profiles, test harnesses and even through SA some Australian Standards. Why are these not being dusted off? - https://developer.digitalhealth.gov.au/specifications/ehealth-foundations/ep-1880-2014

Looking at the ADHA problem statement -

Several key areas have been identified as barriers for implementation and form the core of the immediate technical work program:

Simplifying the message structure and supporting several different content formats;
Assessing the use of commercial security certificates;
Assessing the use of propriety provider identifiers; and
Improving access to reliable provider address information.

Anyone know what the ADHA is trying to do other than confuse? The promised 20/20 cricket but still seem in a 5 day test match mindset. That developer website is obviously the strategy of someone who is not a developer, or at least not in the past 2 decades

Andrew McIntyre said...

I don't see "Simplifying the message structure" as a useful goal. In HL7V2 it should not matter how complex the data is, displaying it is the same across the board. The base level of compliance is being able to reliably receive and display the message. Understanding the atomic data can come later. Reducing messages down to single segment containing a pdf is a retrograde step considering we have had atomic pathology data for > 15 yrs. Clinical data has different "name" parts of "name=value" but is otherwise the same.

Receiver compliance (for display and processing) is urgently required for patient safety.

Anonymous said...

Quite agree Andrew, if that is a fail then better off staying with fax servers to send and receive. It is proven technology, comes built in with a broad range of common applications, and is low cost, easy to use. Simplifying the message is hardly innovation at work. What next? Dumping HI?

Anonymous said...

The tragedy of this is that nationally we do not have the kind of industry leadership to lead an independent discussion about the differences between national infrastructure for point-to-(multi-)share, and the much needed point-to-point infrastructure.

Both have their respective utility, sadly or mistakenly the Government through ADHA chose to advocate for one as replacing the other, which IMHO is somewhat ill-informed and reflects poorly on ADHA.

Dr Ian Colclough said...

The leadership required must be capable of quarantining the 'project' from political interference from the bureaucracy and peak bodies as an absolute minimum. That's a huge ask before one adds in all the other essential criteria of leadership in one of the most difficult of all digital health projects. It is certainly not a job for an ex journalist with no experience in health.

Anonymous said...

At a national level eHealth is over. They have their record system. I can see no incentive for the federal Government. The Jurisdiction will probably move things forward, offer up data to the government record system so as not to add difficulties to funding models. The ADHA will continue to bang on about the fax. Most likely efforts will poor into HL7 only to realise it is a dud and represent a fraction of the standards is is not the respected brand that Standards Australia is.

Anonymous said...

HL7 is hardly a dud, their international efforts are highly respected. They are as well governed, principle based and process lead.

Andrew McIntyre said...

May 16, 2018 8:13 AM

I think you might be a little ignorant about the current environment as everything that is working is based on HL7 standards or even some older Australian PIT.

Standards Australia only ever did localization of HL7 for Australian Standards so I am not sure about this respected brand statement? They did, under pressure do some rubber stamping of NEHTA standards, but they have gone nowhere.

They reality is that everything that is working is a HL7 Standard, usually not that well implemented, but working none the less.