This appeared last week:
AMA says almost all Australians have a My Health Record but not everyone is using it
The AMA's federal president has said the number of records doesn't mean anything if there's nothing in it.
Despite the number of Australians that have a My Health Record, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) federal president Dr Tony Barton has highlighted that it will not deliver all that it's touted as promising if it isn't being utilised properly.
"So almost a year on from that debate we've seen the introduction, and the legislation has passed, and certainly 90.7% of Australians now do have a My Health record," Barton said, addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday.
"But that's only part of the conversation, because that record doesn't mean anything if there's nothing in it."
Barton said the industry needs to look at how My Health Record is being used.
"At the moment, there's just not the information being shared between all parts of the system in a meaningful manner to allow that utility," he said.
Following concerns over the privacy and security of My Health Record, Barton said protection of privacy is fundamental.
"Clearly protection of privacy is fundamental and something we took very seriously then, we take very seriously now, and we will continue to ensure remains very, very significant," he continued.
"The protections about the secondary use of data on this system has been well and truly documented -- it is one of the key issues that we brought to bear because of the momentum that was public opinion at the time."
More here:
(Note its Bartone not Barton)
There was also coverage here:
Australian Medical Association assesses My Health Record's success so far
Nathan Eddy | 26 Jul 2019
The Australian Medical Association federal president Dr. Tony Bartone touted the success of the country’s electronic health record platform, My Health Record, during a speech for the National Press Club on Wednesday, but stressed the need for more patient data in those records.
While Dr. Bartone noted that almost all (90%) of Australians have an account, the number of participants is equaled in importance by the information contained in those records.
"At the moment, there's just not the information being shared between all parts of the system in a meaningful manner to allow utility (between doctors)," he said during a Q&A session at the National Press Club.
In an email interview with Healthcare IT News, AMA South Australia president Dr. Chris Moy explained the two biggest challenges so far in rolling out the platform have been related.
"The first has been too make a strong enough argument regarding benefits of My Health Record to individuals and to the community has a whole, while ensuring that they're confident about the privacy and security of their health information," he said.
He said the second challenge has been to convince enough health providers that there is enough clinical utility to be of benefit to them in their work, and that the system if functional or usable enough for them in their daily work.
"We hope this will improve when they now see that there is a critical mass of patients on the system," Dr. Moy said. "To some degree this has been a chicken and egg situation – but the main thing has been to get to critical mass."
Lots more here:
All I can say is that Dr Moy diagnoses the problem for the #myHR quite well but fails to appreciate the #myHR system, only very infrequently, adds any value to what the GP is already using and already has access to.
Until that changes dramatically, which is very unlikely, the #myHealthRecord is a beached whale!
It really is a simple as that I believe. Just why the AMA thinks things will change I have no idea.
David.
Having something forced on you that you had little desire to have is not exactly a winning formulae for a successful outcome. When you see headlines like: Medicare data used to recruit people with bipolar for research. You have to ask “just what level of harm and damage the whole MyHR undertaking has caused and the trust that has been eroded.
ReplyDeleteIs this damaging what was (or might stuff be) a growing software product community. I know from my own experience my local GP clinic is all confused and not sure about engaging with hocdocs and MediTracker. This is somewhat of an about an early as I would prefer that option ethane then the government option.
ReplyDeleteI believe the MyHR new new new relaunch and rollout has had a damaging impact on software players especially those playing in the consumer end of the market. That is not a concern of government. They are hell-bent on making the MyHR the only clinical-come-consumer-come-pharmacy-come-specialist-come-nextsucker solution available. Strange how each attempt fails.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know of any analysis/predictions re what the dynamics of the system usage might be, before it was even approved for implementation?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the minimum SHS content, minimum update frequency to make it useful and reliable, GP visit patterns, expected consultation/update time required by a GP to manage the thing? You know, medics and public servants call it evidence.
The reality is that after 7 year usage and a change to opt-out, people like Drs Bartone and Moy are still wittering on about usage being important. II only people would use it, it would be useful.
In reality, the reverse statement has more truth. If it were useful, more people would use it.
IMHO, all the evidence says that myhr is a white elephant. Drs Bartone and Moy who, as doctors should be used to using and understanding evidence - it's what clinical medicine is based upon these days.
They should realise the evidence is that the prognosis for myhr is not good. Chunks of misleading PR and unfounded claims will not revive the thing.
The whole sorry saga reminds me of the Dead Parrot sketch with Tim as the pet shop owner denying reality.
I thought it was about dismemberment of the fax in an attempt to resolve some childhood fear.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid I cannot find anything concrete Bernard. Like the recent PSA publication, lots of claims around a problem but nothing to measure if the presented situation improves or continues in a downward spiral.
ReplyDeleteI have though been reading some old NEHTA work pre 2012 and other papers by the authors. They we way ahead of where people where at that time but the certainly were visionary. Much of which is no becoming mainstream thinking. Sadly I do not find evidence of them still involved.
I recommend reading their backend frameworks and technical guides. Some thinking around the standards has been inspiring. Amusing how software was specified all those years ago must have been a developers nightmare. They envisioned a model driven paradigm just lacked business support I guess
myhr can't be about replacing the fax. The ConOp said it wasn't a communications system.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see exactly what the ConOp said about this:
The PCEHR
"is an information system – where participating healthcare providers can access additional selected clinical documents during a consultation with an individual.
and not a communication system – where participating healthcare providers are expected to review any new clinical documents loaded into a PCEHR in between consultations with the individual."
BTW, the Con-Op also says this:
The PCEHR
is a distributed system of service providers working in concert – government and private sector organisations will work together to deliver the PCEHR System to individuals and healthcare providers. The PCEHR System will be underpinned by a legislative framework intended to impose appropriate controls and standards on all the system participants.
and not a single government store of personal information – while public sector bodies may provide some of the repositories which hold information for the PCEHR System, other private sector organisations may also participate as repositories where they meet relevant specifications and standards"
Looks to me as though the myhr is nothing like what the PCEHR was supposed to be - a system of active data repositories.
I wonder if NEHTA got permission from the government to implement something that had not been approved.
It's no wonder the ConOp is missing from the ADHA site and that it has never been updated, in spite of this sentence from the preface:
"The Concept of Operations will be periodically updated as the development of the PCEHR System progresses."
I guess periodically could mean, once every 50 years.
I wonder if NEHTA got permission from the government to implement something that had not been approved.
ReplyDeleteSadly NEHTA was used as a brand to hide behind while forces worked to implemented the GovHR. The then PCEHR was a seperate cost centre and funding stream, reported separately to government. It did though destroy all before it.
This appeared in my inbox - wonder who the organisation could possibly be
ReplyDeletejob description
Your new Department
Our federal government partner is providing a new national approach to deliver the digital health strategy for Australia.
Your new role
As Partnership Manager, the role is responsible for providing strategic and tactical advice, management and leadership to ensure the effective delivery of key partnerships and projects with the health sector industry partners, including software, pathology, diagnostic and community pharmacy providers.
As manager you will actively work with key stakeholders to promote and raise awareness and the adoption of new and existing products to shape positive perceptions of the agency.
About your role
You will:
Support the delivery of strategic and operational Account Management plans with key Industry partners
Establish and maintain CRM processes to ensure Industry Account Plans and stakeholder details are up-to-date and accurate
Support the drafting of project status and governance meeting papers, including executive briefings on Industry partners and relevant activities
"... to shape positive perceptions of the agency"
ReplyDeletepositive perceptions - says it all
Maybe the CHF or the RACGP?
ReplyDeleteDavid.
more likely the CSIRO or the Digital Health CRC.
ReplyDeleteReading the description I think when they say “Our federal government partner is providing a new national approach to deliver the digital health strategy for Australia“ this means Randsteads new federal partner.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the position level - EL1 that is a federal government band. The pay is a bit crap and the qualifications are in the field of sales??
My guess is this is ADHA.
Better to read it this way ....
ReplyDeleteThe Federal Government's partner is providing a new national approach to deliver ....
So, the advert comes from the Department.
The use of "our" instead of "the" is intended to distance the Department (deceptively)
The Manager will be employed by the Department (EL2), reporting to the Department, whilst being seconded to the Agency (ADHA) to help drive partnership engagement in an attempt to dig the ADHA out of the huge hole it has dug which is increasingly embarrasing to the Department
From the blog post on faxes:
ReplyDelete"When ADHA CEO Tim Kelsey was newly recruited from the UK three years ago, he said it was time for a “bonfire of the faxes”.
Their demise would transform healthcare just as the digital revolution had transformed other industries, he said."
"transform healthcare"? replacing the fax?
When the CEO makes fatuous statements like that, there is no hope.
When you have dug your way into a huge hole, digging just makes it worse.
They are only looking for some (anyone) with a sales background that can tick a set of boxes. No interest or experience in local, state of general health environments.
ReplyDeleteHave we burned through all available talent in all quarters that having bothered to read the job posting is qualification enough?
Well the ADHA has given birth to a range of thought leaders and health strategists by dumbing it all down and redefining what ‘expert’ means
ReplyDelete@10:42 AM They (whoever they are) acknowledge they have a problem. The issue here is that the job description clearly shows they don't understand the problem else they wouldn't be advertising that position.
ReplyDeleteThey perceive the problem is that people are not using the system whereas the real problem they have is that the don't want to know, and they don't want to hear, why people aren't using the system.
ReplyDeleteWe have witnessed this ostrich like attitude many times in the past with NEHTA and ADHA and every time they come up with some hair-brained ideas on how to fix the problem - remember the Tiger Teams, Wave 1 and Wave 2, etc.
Perhaps one day they might decide to ask people like you what they should do to fix the problems. It seems to me they've tried everything else including asking big name consultants all to no avail.
"Perhaps one day they might decide to ask people like you what they should do to fix the problems"
ReplyDeleteThe big problem is that they are trying to fix a problem they shouldn't even be trying to fix - they don't have the expertise and the snake oil, sorry, My Health Record, is in direct opposition to those products coming out of the Australian software industry.
My advice is: stop wasting money trying to do something nobody wants and which is killing Australian innovation, not helping it.