HL7 Australia Event - Pathology Messaging Thursday 30th May Brisbane
The Fantauzzo, 5 Boundary Street
Brisbane City, QLD 4000
Australia
Most of the healthcare messaging in Australia is based on HL7 V2 standards. We are looking at the current localisation of standards (particularly for Pathology), tooling support and state of the world.
Thursday May 30th 2019
|
8:30am-9:30am Tutorial
Pre-geek HL7 V2 Introduction for non-experts (Jared Davison, Andrew McIntyre) 60 mins
9:30am-10:00am Break / Registration
10:00am-11:15am Messaging Standards Overview
Overview of New Pathology and Referral HL7 Australia Standard (Michael Legg, Jared Davison, Andrew McIntyre, David McKillop) 30 mins
Resources and Tools for getting it right - PITUS, NCTS, Testing and Compliance Tools Suite (Jared Davison, Eric Browne) 30 mins
Question Time 15 mins
9:30am-10:00am Break (Morning Tea)
11:30am-12:30pm Issues with Interoperability Success
Messaging Provider Perspective (Andrew McIntyre) 15 mins
Sender/Receiver Perspective (Vincent McCauley, Brett Esler) 15 mins
Panel Discussion / Open Floor: Potential Solutions 30 mins
12:30pm-1:30pm Break (Lunch)
1:30pm-2:45pm Other Related Works
Overview: Child Health Overview (Reuben Daniels) 20 mins
Overview: FHIR Provider Directory (Brian Postlethwaite) 20 mins
Overview: Registries (Vincent McCauley) 20 mins
Overview: Australian FHIR Localisation (Brett Esler) 15 mins
2:45pm-3:00pm Break (Afternoon Tea)
3:00pm-4:00pm Future Outlook
Regulatory framework for standards - ADHA, MSIA, TGA, NPAAC etc. (Michael Legg) 15 mins
Virtual Medical Record / Structured Reporting (Andrew McIntyre) 15 mins
Panel Discussion / Open Floor : Future Works (30 mins)
|
FOR ACCOMODATION USE booking.hl7.com.au
TO SUPPORT HL7 AUSTRALIA
Working Group Liaison, HL7 AUSTRALIA®
brett.esler@hl7.com.au
Brett Esler
Here is the link:Well worth attending if you want to be full bottle on what is current and planned.
David.
10 comments:
I don't want to denigrate the efforts being made in this area, but there is a suspicion that the streetlight effect is at work. The last paragraph is telling.
New research examines how IT issues affect care, outcomes
By Joseph Goedert
https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/new-research-examines-how-it-issues-affect-care-outcomes?brief=00000157-c311-d2b6-af57-cb9929c60000
"Three researchers at the Australian Institute for Health Innovation and the University of California at San Francisco have documented potential adverse effects that health information technology has on care delivery and patient outcomes.
Widespread adoption of IT brings many potential benefits, the study authors acknowledge. Yet at the same time, it can increase likelihood of new and often unforeseen errors that affect the safety and quality of clinical care, which could lead to harm.
Mi Ok Kim, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics in California, Farah Magrabi, associate professor of Health Innovation in Australia, and Enrico Coiera, a professor and director at the Centre for Health Informatics in Australia, reviewed results from 34 studies to assess how IT problems affect user interactions, information receipt, decision-making, care processes and patient outcomes.
“Issues with system functionality, include poor user interfaces, fragmented displays and delayed care delivery,” the researchers note. “Issues with system access, system configuration and software updates also delayed care. In 18 studies (53 percent), IT problems were linked to patient harm and death. Near-miss events were reported in 10 studies (29 percent.)”
...
“We do focus on those often latent or silent errors that are the result of a mismatch between the functioning of the PCIS and the real-life demands of healthcare,” they conclude. “Such errors are not easily found by a technical analysis of the PCIS design. They can only emerge when the technical system is embedded into a working organization and can vary from one organization to the next. Yet in failing to take seriously well-recognized features of healthcare work, some PCISs are designed or implemented in such a way that error can arguably be expected to result.”
How is this gathering being funded? Is the ADHA contributing to the cost and how much? How will it make a difference to what the ADHA is doing?
Out of interest why ADHA? Other than an employee and a consultant doing the standards investigation not much links back to ADHA
Have a read of this:
https://theqlder.com/2019/05/11/how-the-liberals-sabotaged-the-nbn/
Two of the main players who f**ked up the NBN were Abbott and Deloitte.
Rings any bells?
"How is this gathering being funded? Is the ADHA contributing to the cost and how much? How will it make a difference to what the ADHA is doing?"
Its funded by HL7 Australia and I am not aware of any ADHA funding. There may be some support from Queensland Health, but I am not really aware of the details.
I don't think it matters if it effects what the ADHA is doing, its about making people aware of the issues with whats in use today on real patients. Its a technical meeting, aimed at implementers.
"Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...
I don't want to denigrate the efforts being made in this area, but there is a suspicion that the streetlight effect is at work. The last paragraph is telling."
This level of functionality is about reliable data and we are not about to go back to paper. I agree that there are lots of issues, but compliant data is the base level of functionality that everything is build on. The foundations are in need of some underpinning!
Good to see HL7 Aus getting out and about. have a great day Andrew. Without standards there would be nothing.
I wasn't suggesting that HL7 and interoperability in general are not worthy of pursuit, I was drawing attention to the apparent neglect of other areas of health IT that have a more profound impact on healthcare as practiced today.
Technology oriented problems are important but those healthcare delivery problems that are identified in the paper deserve more attention that they currently get.
"Bernard Robertson-Dunn said...
I wasn't suggesting that HL7 and interoperability in general are not worthy of pursuit"
It would be wonderful to be dealing with higher level problems and I look forward to doing that. However having compliance with the low level data formats is a pre-requisite for dealing with them and managers don't seem to get that. I have heard a lot of complaints about data quality from the cancer registry people and MyHR people. Neglect of basic compliance dooms higher level activities to failure. Its like trying to build software with a compiler that regularly produces the wrong code.
It is great to see that a technical standards meeting can generate so many comments - on a Sunday no less! I'll pick up on two items.
1. The new HL7.au localisation for pathology covers diagnostic imaging and now referrals so in that sense it is very relevant to current ADHA activity. The ADHA through dedicated staff like David McKillop have been active but only as for other members of the Orders and Observations working group. Like Andrew, I am not aware of any funding for the meeting from ADHA.
2. I have been an Adjunct Fellow at AIHI for some time now and so am well across the thinking around integration with health systems and human factors. Our focus with the RCPA Standards for Pathology Informatics in Australia (SPIA) has been on patient safety and real communication. The standards development has always included patients and report recipients. This work is drawn on heavily in the making of the HL7.au v2 Localisation that is the subject of the HL7 Meeting. If this is your particular interest then the MSIA are also going to hold a workshop focused on patholgoy, DI and referral on 13 June at the RCPA in Sydney. I am talking there on the PITUS standardisation project followed by Enrico Coiera on AI and how it will change digital health - it's likely Enrico's message will be likewise safety and effectiveness focused.
Post a Comment