Quote Of The Year

Quote Of The Year - Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"

Monday, December 31, 2018

Annual Report Alert: The ADHA Has Published Its 2017-2018 Annual Report

Here is a link from which to download the .pdf.

https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/about-the-agency/publications/reports/annual-report/Annual_Report_Australian_Digital_Health_Agency_2017-2018_Online.pdf

You can play the "seek out all the spin" game and you will score pretty highly. There is a fair bit to be found!

David.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/data-mistakes-see-wrong-medical-details-entered-into-my-health-records

And these are just the ones reported…what about ones that are likely to have gone unreported/unnoticed given the number of people who don't even know they have a MHR?

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

IMHO, it's not the number of times such an error has occurred, it's the fact that the error can occur in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see a report on the number of and reasons for records being rejected/lost etc... both myself and my GP have place several request to the ADHA asking why over the past few years records that have been uploaded are not appearing. I know I am not alone in this issue. The lack of care from the Adha is the prompt for me to seek alternatives and look forward to the permanent delete function coming online.

Anyone know why clinical documents might not be appearing in the myth system and why?

Dr Ian Colclough said...

Yes David, there is a lot of spin, futuristic claims and motherhood. Even so, it is a well constructed fairly comprehensive document relatively free of hype. The financials are particularly revealing to the trained eye. I found it interesting that in this age of transparency Page 126 Note 4.2 Key Management Personnel Remuneration was anything but informative (unlike similar 'accountable' documents published by companies listed on the ASX.

Does the Annual Report fulfill its intended purpose?

Who is its primary target audience?

From a sales perspective it is directed first and foremost at government decision makers (politicians) and in that regard it does its job well. It meets all the sales criteria of the Lee DuBois Sales Course. http://www.leedubois.com/

It is designed to reassure the primary customer and secure the sale (more funds) to do what the government thinks it wants the ADHA to keep doing.

At the heart of the Lee DuBois course in closing the sale is a repetition of many 'big fat claims' all aimed at reassuring the customer by tapping into the customer's emotions and imagination in order to get the customer nod, nod, nodding until the customer orders the system (provides more funds to keep going). In that regard I think we should all agree it does its job well.

Anonymous said...

it has a lot in common with trumpism - deny reality, claim success, blame others for failure. it only works with the ignorant, and will die when harsh reality is so obvious that the majority say - enough of this madness. but die it will.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

Talking about reality.....

There's an article in today's SMH "Greg Hunt warns pharmacists and doctors on medicine information"
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/greg-hunt-warns-pharmacists-and-doctors-on-medicine-information-20190101-p50p3g.html

it has this quote:

'"My biggest push is can we make this document user friendly and understandable, that people want to access," Professor Aslani said, citing Australian Bureau of Statistics data showing that 60 per cent of Australians had poor to low health literacy.'

The ADHA advertising brochure, sorry, Annual Report, doesn't mention that little fact.

There are two major obstacles to the ADHA achieving its purpose "To improve health outcomes for Australians through the delivery of digital health services and systems, and to support digital innovation across Australia to give people more control of their health and healthcare"

1. GPs and doctors in general have not bought into the myhr concept. It adds costs and delivers little or no value to them.

2. Most Australians are either not interested in their health data or are totally incapable of taking "control of their health and healthcare"

The ADHA does not appear to be addressing either.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

And some more holiday reading, this time from the UK:

Millions of people failing to take free test that could spot deadly diseases, NHS warns
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-check-up-nhs-test-alzheimers-dementia-diabetes-heart-disease-doctor-a8705866.html

"A free health check that could spot deadly diseases has been taken by less than half of over-40s, NHS England has warned.

The free screening tests for many of Britain's biggest killers, such as heart problems, kidney disease and Type 2 diabetes. But it has been taken by only a minority of the 15 million people who are eligible to undergo it, the health body warned.

It consists of just a 20 minute long, entirely painless assessment and could potentially save people's lives, experts have warned.

But despite the fact that dementia and Alzheimer's disease remain the leading cause of death in England and Wales in 2017, millions of people have not taken the test that could quickly help avoid them."

...


Two observations.

AFAIK, there is no equivalent in Australia. Maybe we can't afford it after spending so much on myhr?

Even when and where it is available few people take advantage of it. Taken with the report that '60 per cent of Australians have poor to low health literacy' does this government really think people will engage with myhr?

Anonymous said...

This is plain and simple “nudge” at work. Good theories like good standards usually fall over with poor interpretation, cherry picking and implementation. Where jungle is prescribed those in chanrge confuse it with yank. NHS and to the same extent in the USA can claim some references to sucees conditions being reached but they are becoming fewer and farther between. Most likely due to repeating the same each time without understanding the changed conditions, new constraints and other such influencers. We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives such as the ‘nudging people’ idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don’t help people make long-term behaviour changes.

Anonymous said...

I think Ian's nailed it 6:03 PM ... the primary target is the Government, politicians and Department bureaucrats. Nothing else matters because they allocate the money. If the ANAO can't see through all bullshit when undertaking their Audit nothing will change.

Dr Ian Colclough said...

8:07 AM SMH story "Greg Hunt warms pharmacists and doctors".

What a classic piece. Everyone who wants to be noticed has something to say on what needs to be done. The journalist has done a masterly job of sucking a quote or two from a busl o.j ad of experts. All that remains now to be done is to flesh out each quote with some riveting dialogue and give it to the cast of the ABCs Utopia to breathe life into it. An absolute classic.

Anonymous said...

Worth noting the Annual report is not up to date. The ADHA is holding an explosive issue that I hear they at the top are struggling to grasp. The next few months will be interesting to say they least.

Anonymous said...

Reality starting to catchup? I am sure there will be many “issues” forthcoming this year. Anyone know what is happening with the building of this big beautiful platform? Seems time is running short or is ignorance of what is involved delaying action?

Dr Ian Colclough said...

Surely the Annual Report is up to date for the period which it is intended to cover being dd/mm/2017 to dd/mm/2018.

Statistics and events after that period are not relevant for this Annual Report.

Without being more specific it is meaningless and therefore misleading to blandly say the Annual Report is not up to date.

Anonymous said...

You need to be realistic and cut some slack. This is a very complex project with huge numbers of stakeholders, all with differing views. It is a work in progress and there will always be new issues emerging to be solved. It's not a matter of "playing catchup", it's a matter of getting the job done.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

What exactly is "the job"?

According to the annual report the purpose of the ADHA is "to improve health outcomes for Australians through the delivery of digital innovation, health systems and services."

I see no evidence that what the ADHA is doing will achieve any of those things. Even if there are some marginal improvements (which I doubt, the costs are too high) could the money be better spent doing other things.

According to this report in today's SMH

Discovery could have deadly prostate cancer 'quaking'

https://www.smh.com.au/national/discovery-could-have-deadly-prostate-cancer-quaking-20190103-p50pfw.html

"The federal government is investing almost $800,000 into researching how prostate cancers spread and become impervious to conventional treatment."

and,

' "This critical research project is among NHMRC grants worth more than $526 million," Mr Hunt said.'

The ADHA is costing this government probably almost as much as the NHMRC grants.

I know where I'd rather the money went.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...

The hard reality is three fold:
Money, Time and the ANAO review.

It will cost many millions and take many years to re-platform the myhr. It is quite likely that whichever party forms the next government will not make a decision to commit these resources until the ANAO review has completed.

It would also mean that there would be an opportunity to review the value or otherwise of the move to opt-out - specifically have GPs been convinced it is worth the effort to populate the thing.

And the ADHA would have a chance to justify the benefits of the system, assuming such a thing is possible.

All in all, I doubt that there will be any major changes to anything ADHA is doing.

Anonymous said...

What is this "explosive issue" you (9:41 AM) to which you so obscurely allude?

Anonymous said...

I'm not 9:41 but it could be something to do with their overdue responses to questions they took on notice at the last round of estimates?

Di Natale asked them questions about how their surveys of health staff attitudes to MHR after the start of opt-out, compared to beforehand.

Kelsey committed to sharing the full survey so it will be interesting to see if and when the ADHA comply.

Questions 29 and 30 are important, but 31 is the kicker;

"Senator DI NATALE: On the percentage of health professionals who believe patient information will be kept private? I'm interested in the most recent survey results, both before and after the recent controversies, I'll call them. The percentage of health professionals who believe that it will be safe from unauthorised access. The proportion of health professionals who use it for themselves or for their families, and whether they'd recommend it to patients, family or friends. And on people's attitudes towards the system-whether they believe there are potential benefits-whether those numbers are tracking up or down. I'm very interested in the trends over time with each of those specific indicators.

Mr Kelsey: We'll take that on notice. Some of the questions aren't quite the same as the ones you've asked, but we'll provide you with data.

Senator DI NATALE: Are you able to provide us with a full survey?

Mr Kelsey: Yes."

Anonymous said...

I am not 9:41 either but this could prove to be a thorn for a number of government entities

https://mobile.twitter.com/Asher_Wolf/status/1080086173333184513

That seems to have a few issues tied around it. Looks like the MyHR is consolidating everyone’s data quality and integrity issues and spewing them forth in a single easy to see portal. I guess exposing government entities and their customer. Are ethics is not such a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousJanuary 04, 2019 10:40 AM
You need to be realistic and cut some slack. This is a very complex project with huge numbers of stakeholders, all with differing views. It is a work in progress and there will always be new issues emerging to be solved. It's not a matter of "playing catchup", it's a matter of getting the job done.

Except
1. On the scale of things, no it is not that big a job, the system was in place, your job was to ready it and educate people to a level of comfort

2. None of the current issues are new, except the ones created by fumbling this up

3. The stakeholders are not new, it is the same caring cohort as their always has been, a failure to undertake stakeholder analysis and determine how their respective concerns and needs to be managed was obviously not undertaken or taken seriously.

You thought you could do better than those dimwits that came before you but clearly you can’t and perhaps throwing the baby out with the bath water was not a wise choice.

Anonymous said...

It could also be that they haven't been able to implement delete means delete yet, despite promising it would be good to go on December 7