This report of a RACGP Digital Health Session appeared a day or so ago.
Digital must seamlessly mesh with GP workflows: RACGP eHealth forum
Digital health has to work according to the way GPs practice if is to help – and not hinder.
Dr Rob Hosking said he wants to see health informatics become a special interest for increasing numbers of GPs.
29 Aug 2019
That was one of the overarching themes of the RACGP’s fifth annual eHealth forum, held in Melbourne on Thursday 29 August.
‘It should be naturally easy to use data in a well-designed data system to answer questions about our patients and our practices,’ RACGP Expert Committee – Quality Care (REC–QC) Chair Associate Professor Mark Morgan said in a forum Q&A session.
RACGP Expert Committee – Practice Technology and Management (REC–PTM) Deputy Chair Dr Steven Kaye told the audience that GPs do not see the value in data for data’s sake, but only in how clinically useful it is.
According to Dr Kaye, data analysis is not the GP’s role, and many GPs do not see the benefit of ensuring standardised data sets or sharing data.
Dr Kaye talked about how busy GPs already feel swamped by the amount of data they have to deal with in their practice.
But solutions are at hand.
Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) CEO Tim Kelsey told the forum that his agency is focusing this year on improving secure messaging and broader digital health interoperability, after the nationwide My Health Record program ended its opt-out period in February and led to 90% of Australians having a health record created for them.
Mr Kelsey said the My Health Record is now seeing significant growth in registrations and clinical uploads, and he believes there is an opportunity to modernise the system as part of a broader move towards interoperability.
Mr Kelsey gave the example of a GP he knows who was sceptical of the clinical benefits of My Health Record, until he was able to see the prescribing history of a patient who had been seeking strong opioids from a number of GPs.
Another potential solution lies in a ground-breaking new CSIRO project in progress that focuses on standards for primary care medical data. Primary Care Data Quality Foundations is intended to boost the quality of primary data useful to the GP who inputs it, not the quality of data intended for use in secondary research.
CSIRO Business Development Manager Kate Ebrill said the project is designed to reduce duplication of effort.
More here:
‘It should be naturally easy to use data in a well-designed data system to answer questions about our patients and our practices,’ RACGP Expert Committee – Quality Care (REC–QC) Chair Associate Professor Mark Morgan said in a forum Q&A session.
RACGP Expert Committee – Practice Technology and Management (REC–PTM) Deputy Chair Dr Steven Kaye told the audience that GPs do not see the value in data for data’s sake, but only in how clinically useful it is.
According to Dr Kaye, data analysis is not the GP’s role, and many GPs do not see the benefit of ensuring standardised data sets or sharing data.
Dr Kaye talked about how busy GPs already feel swamped by the amount of data they have to deal with in their practice.
But solutions are at hand.
Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) CEO Tim Kelsey told the forum that his agency is focusing this year on improving secure messaging and broader digital health interoperability, after the nationwide My Health Record program ended its opt-out period in February and led to 90% of Australians having a health record created for them.
Mr Kelsey said the My Health Record is now seeing significant growth in registrations and clinical uploads, and he believes there is an opportunity to modernise the system as part of a broader move towards interoperability.
Mr Kelsey gave the example of a GP he knows who was sceptical of the clinical benefits of My Health Record, until he was able to see the prescribing history of a patient who had been seeking strong opioids from a number of GPs.
Another potential solution lies in a ground-breaking new CSIRO project in progress that focuses on standards for primary care medical data. Primary Care Data Quality Foundations is intended to boost the quality of primary data useful to the GP who inputs it, not the quality of data intended for use in secondary research.
CSIRO Business Development Manager Kate Ebrill said the project is designed to reduce duplication of effort.
More here:
As most know a GP workflow works best when they can work with a single system which has its interactions structured in such a way that progression through screens follows their normal way of working with as little deviation as possible.
This smooth usage really contrasts with, at some point, popping out to another quite different remote system which is a large collection of documents (with their contents not all that obvious on many occasions) to clarify some information which has a quite high probability of not being there or of being out of date and so on
To me suggesting the MyHR will help workflow is a ginormous fib!
What do you think?
David.
8 comments:
With all due respect, this is simply a new round of turds from the same old asses. Heard the same for ten years about AMT, a lot of bouncing balls
"Mr Kelsey said the My Health Record is now seeing significant growth in registrations" ......
Oh dear me Mr Kelsey. The growth in registrations occurred back in February when opt-out period ended! Surely you are not asking everyone to believe that there has been a further growth in registrations since then. Of course, as ADHA has stopped providing statistics, anything you say cannot be believed as you seem unwilling to provide any evidence to support your claims.
and .....
Oh Mr Kelsey .... the "broader move towards interoperability" hs nothing to do with the ADHA. Surely you know the broader move got underway over 10 years ago and work has been in train since then in fits and starts but with little progress to show for it.
All this babble and no substance reminds me of Plato "“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”
A shift from human imperative, digital transformation, replatforming ... to modernisation. The ADHA has run out of ideas and is clearly vision less and out of its depth.
Current system operation contract has probably been extended behind closed doors, miraculously and with little strategy and architecture, ADHA will be dragged toward paying lip service to FHIR and they will use that as the ‘interoperability’ success.
The article highlights the problem we faced with vision less management at Nehta and the vision less dribble we now get from ADHA
Dr Kaye talked about how busy GPs already feel swamped by the amount of data they have to deal with in their practice.
But solutions are at hand.
Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) CEO Tim Kelsey told the forum that his agency is focusing this year on improving secure messaging and broader digital health interoperability.
Dr Kay’s problem statement is not resolved by ADHA cEO. Quite the opposite, secure messaging is Not going to elevate the ever increasing volume of data (of which 0.5% would be used). The way ADHA has approach secure messaging will actually make thing worse from a clinical usefulness perspective
Here's a recent analysis of the care.data debacle Mr Kelsey was intimately involved in:
Resisting big data exploitations in public healthcare: Free riding or distributive justice?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335234216_Resisting_big_data_exploitations_in_public_healthcare_Free_riding_or_distributive_justice
Mr Kelsey's legacy is summed up in the last sentence:
"Consequently, public distrust and resistance to national big data programmes in healthcare grows."
"Digital health has to work according to the way GPs practice if is to help – and not hinder."
Oh yeah?
"The threat of modern medicine: Most patients will derive no health improvement from medication"
https://www.sott.net/article/394873-The-threat-of-modern-medicine-Most-patients-will-derive-no-health-improvement-from-medication
@10:32 AM and the following from the Introduction sounds all too familiar .....
"The UK government announced (in 2013) its own programme called ‘care.data’.
However, due to a public outcry, which resulted in approximately 1.5m opt-outs, the (Care.data) programme never fully materialised and was eventually terminated in 2016 after the National Data Guardian’s (NDG) review (Lea 2016).
Care.data’s failure has been attributed to poor communication, security risks and ambiguous information governance and data dissemination practices (HSCIC 2014, Vezyridis and Timmons 2017).
Similar national programmes, for example in Denmark (Wadmann and Hoeyer 2018), are also under attack for their opaque dissemination practices in support of governmental and commercial contexts of exploitation."
10:56 AM, help me out here, what exactly is your point? The essence of the article and the statement in your comment are hard to marry together.
Post a Comment