Here are the
results of the poll.
With My Health Record Built On Decade Old Technology, Will Developments By Industry, Like FHIR etc., Inevitably Make It Useless And Redundant Over Time?
Yes 97% (140)No 3% (4)
I Have No Idea 0% (0)
Total votes: 144
This is pretty clear cut to say the least! The myHR is already past its use-by date and will not ever be a success.
Any insights on the poll welcome as a comment, as usual.
A really, great turnout of votes!
It must have been a very easy question as 0/144 readers were not sure what the appropriate answer was.
Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted!
David.
10 comments:
IMHO, myhr will be a failure for one simple reason - it is too expensive for the benefits/outcomes it actually delivers.
The government has probably developed a business case (we don't know because none has ever been released) that grossly underestimated the total costs (i.e. to the government and to the health care industry) and vastly overestimated the benefits.
The claimed benefits apply, at best, to a very small proportion of Australians and most of the costs (i.e. to GPs) result in vanishingly small benefits to those same GPs.
Eventually some hard headed economist will realise this, based upon evidence, not the vapour-ware that the Department of Health is putting out. They'll start asking the Health Minister (whoever that is at the time, Coalition or Labor) some very awkward questions.
It is probably a good thing that the system is to become opt-out as it will highlight its lack of use, its high costs and the availability of better alternatives that benefit patients who want those benefits. myhr has minimal clinical benefits which will disappear totally when interoperability is improved.
It also means the longer this fiasco goes on, the bigger the failure.
Written as Timmy was scuttling out of the UK with a Wellington stuck in his britches.
www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2016/08/03/nhs_caredata_architect_to_head_oz_digital_health_agency/
The last sentence presents o good question - Let's hope that privacy can also get a look-in under the agency's new broom.
The amazing thing is he thinks he can get away with it - that his past won't catch up with him. It's almost as though he doesn't understand the new digital ecosystem.
Ironic.
It was a meaningless question, of course it would be obsolete technology at some point. Maybe ask it again asking how long people think it will take until then
I would suggest it is obsolete now. It is structured around a filling system that someone from the 1800’s would recognise. Just what impact it will have on consumers that start using apps to view medical information sourced from the Government HR system? I have a feeling it will result in a poor view of the app rather than the source data store. This will IMHO leave a lasting and less than positive impression in consumers minds of the consumer health app market.
Oh course it (GovHR) is obsolete currently, most technology is out of date the day you buy it. That is why at this scale robust architecture is essential to avoid being locked in. Which is where I believe we are with this liability.
According to the ADHA's website:
"The Agency is responsible for national digital health services and systems, with a focus on engagement, innovation and clinical quality and safety."
But, just from memory, the following are also doing Digital Health:
CSIRO
"We are improving the safety, quality and efficiency of health services for all Australians by delivering technology in clinical partnerships to create a better health system."
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/BF/Areas/Digital-health
The new Digital Health CRC
"We are developing a unique, multidisciplinary, collaborative taskforce of research, clinical, industry, government and educational organisations to focus research and development on combining individual and collective expertise with data, information and telecommunication technologies."
https://www.digitalhealthcrc.com/#mission
The NHMRC:
"The NHMRC CRE (Centre for Research Excellence) in Digital Health is a national research centre which brings together the major Australian centres of health informatics research. It has the support of the Australian Digital Health Agency and the Australasian College of Health Informatics. Together this community of researchers and front-line service providers are tackling the challenges that impede the creation of a truly safe, efficient and effective digital health services for both clinicians and consumers."
https://digitalhealth.edu.au/
ANDHealth
"ANDHealth is an industry led national digital health initiative established by a consortium of commercial and government partners to facilitate and support the development & commercialisation of clinically validated digital health technologies across Australia.
ANDHealth’s primary objective is to create an integrated and connected ecosystem for the development & commercialisation of evidence-based digital health products, bringing together participants from the medtech and pharmaceutical sectors with a broader stakeholder group drawn from the ICT and commercial sectors, and by putting in place the key elements required to create a cohesive and collaborative digital health industry."
http://andhealth.com.au/
The ADHA's National Strategy makes mention of a few CSIRO initiatives, but has nothing on NHMRC, the CRC (although it seems to support both) or ANDHealth.
Whatever is actually going on in Digital Health in Australia, it is not exactly co-ordinated and ADHA's so called "Australia’s National Digital Health Strategy" isn't.
Well Bernard it was lead by people who had just arrived in Australia so this reflects all they could pickup in a year or so, the Jurisdictions guided only towards entities that. Would not result in Federal interference in their own respective research, innovation and standardisation hubs.
Regardless, the ADHA is bound to collecting unstructured content, that may or may not be sufficiently rich or complete enough to provide a safe insight into the owners overall health picture. Now the treating party may choice to use this raw data and risk diagnoses and treatment based on that data knowing that it is not a complete picture, in which case they are liable for the outcome. Or they may proceed with current best practices. The latter rendering the GovHR a bit pointless.
Joining the dots ......
A couple of interesting news reports:
'Labor announce high-profile neurosurgeon Brian Owler as candidate for Bennelong'
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/labor-pick-high-profile-candidate-brian-owler-in-bennelong/10445710
30 Oct 2018
'Pharmacists, doctors feud over 'botched' e-health record rollout'
https://www.afr.com/business/health/pharmacists-doctors-feud-over-botched-ehealth-record-rollout-20160225-gn3ujb
26 Feb 2016
'Australian Medical Association president Brian Owler said the organisation backed e-health records as a way of controlling health costs, but the government had failed to ask medical specialists what they needed to make My Health Record work.
Professor Owler admitted many specialists did not use electronic health records, but said most medical practice software was aimed at GPs and was not suitable for specialist practices.
"Until we start to engage with people as to how it might work and the software vendors are on board, it's never going to work," he told AFR Weekend.
Professor Owler said My Health Record would not succeed in cutting waste in pharmaceuticals because while most GPs used electronic prescribing, some hospitals, specialists and other healthcare providers don't, and where they do, their software "doesn't talk to each other".
"The Pharmacy Guild owns chemist shops and they have point-of-sale systems, and they have electronic systems to print out the stickers, but that's a long way from our main interest, which is actually provision of care to patients." '
Poll 447 "Should The Government Be Able To Reject Out Of Hand The Majority Recommendations..."
What is the significance of having "Be Able To" in the question?
It would be an easier question without those 3 words.
Post a Comment