Clinicians sharing information with other clinicians
Significant Growth
I am sure you will all instantly understand just how rich, comprehensive and quantitative the data they have provided is. Click on graphic to make it bigger.
They really are utterly paranoid about how little the system is actually used by clinicians I reckon. They know they have an information gap but simply refuse to come clean with the public. Note how as a proportion the Shared Summaries are simply hardly used!
Explanations of what this actually tells us welcome! They must take us all for utter fools!
David.
18 comments:
It looks as though the largest % of uploads comes from Pharmacists
They are working hard to make a buck out of their customers.
I wonder how much data they sell to their "interested" parties. Their loyalty card Ts&Cs probably make interesting reading
It would be interesting if they graphed numbers not percentages. You probably wouldn't be able to see the number of downloads on the same scale as uploads.
As presented here the graphs are meaningless drivel, unrelated to any axis range/ numerics. All they serve to do is demean the authoring organisation demonstrating their extreme stupidity. On the other hand it makes no difference to RFI respondents , all they want is to get on the short list to be considered for the next stage.
All this shows is the relative % of who uploads or downloads, but:
1/ It tells us nothing about the actual number uploaded or downloaded. !0% of 100 is not the same as 10% of a million.
2/ the scales on the left and right hand side, if they reflected real volumes, would not match up. So it is tricky to say the least to put them at the same visual scale to imply indirectly that they are comparable in terms of actual event volumes.
So when you notice a big fat bar on the right it could actually be just a tiny fraction of the activity of a thin line on the left.
Cheeky!
Cheeky isn't the word. Misleading is. Dissembling is another
Interesting - shared health summaries don't seem to be viewed at all by hospitals, public or private. I can't even see a connecting line.
Don't hospitals care about their patients' primary care histories? Or are they getting it from elsewhere?
Some actual numbers on the graphs might be useful to see what is really going on. They are clearly so bad we can't see them or is there another explanation?
David.
I question the authenticity of the information being presented by ADHA. They look a lot like a rehash of some earlier NEHTA work. An example is below. I think someone was bored one afternoon and looked in the shared drive for something interesting
https://www.digitalhealth.gov.au/about-the-agency/publications/presentations/myehr-to-national-ehealth-record-transition-impact-evaluation-phase-1-presentation/TIEPhase1_PublicPresentation.pdf
The NT has been planning to transition to the PCEHR/MyHR since 2014
I have a copy of a presentation
"Electronic Health Records:
The NT’s going National
Grand Rounds – Royal Darwin Hospital, Monday 27 October 2014"
It does not seem to be available on-line. There's a copy here
http://www.drbrd.com/docs/myhr/RDH.pdf
Slide 7 says:
"Our Transition to the National eHealth Record
eHealthNT will manage a controlled transition to the National eHealth Record over the next nine months.
The purpose of this transition is to make the National eHealth Record the primary health record used across the Northern Territory.
The key consideration during this transition is to ensure that access to existing clinical information is maintained and enhanced.
As such, consumers who are not yet registered for the National eHealth Record will still receive the current level of service."
This page (updated February 2019)
"Electronic health record: My eHealth Record
https://nt.gov.au/wellbeing/hospitals-health-services/my-ehealth-record
says:
"The NT My eHealth Record is currently transitioning to the national My Health Record system, so there will be one national eHealth record used within Australia."
I wonder if Mr Kelsey mentioned this in his little 10 minute chat at the Rural Medicines Australia conference #RMA19 yesterday. He did promise to Axe the Fax by 2020
https://twitter.com/RaatusRuth/status/1187516575282163712
BTW, the only mention of Digital Health in the conference program was Mr Kelsey's "keynote address"
Everyone else was far too preoccupied with proper rural medical care issues.
Does not sound like Tim’s “keynote” established a main underlying theme. Wonder if they feel obligated to. Some sort of Quid pro quo? All the rage amongst some.
If you select tweets searching on "#RMA19 digital" you get 9 tweets, two from @AuDigitalHealth
For someone brought in on the back of presumed communication and persuasive skills he has not delivered on that promise. The number of tweets you highlight Bernard are sadly quite high for Tim and the ADHA.
Wonder if the axe will fall elsewhere in 2020?
In this tweet
https://twitter.com/DanWilsonMD/status/1187516073249128448
it says
"Tim Kelsey CEO Australian Digital Health Agency at #RMA19: Asking to be held accountable to a 2020 deadline to obviate the need for facsimile, and modernise health communication; digitise it; standardise it, across Australia."
He's sticking his neck out, asking to be held accountable for something over which he has no control whatsoever. Although he does use the weasel phrase "obviate the need"
IMHO, he's either foolish or knows something we don't.
Or both.
October 26, 2019 11:30 AM
Although he does use the weasel phrase "obviate the need"
That situation arguably exists now. Trusted clinical communications will be achieved amongst interoperability partners not by some government agency that has limited clinical influence and even less ability to design standards and specifications.
Changing your definition and boundary conditions does not change the true meaning or the reality.
The great thing about always borrowing ideas and slogans for the NHS is we can reuse the news headlines.
.
https://www.digitalhealth.net/2019/09/trusts-set-to-miss-axe-the-fax-deadline-due-to-concerning-lack-of-progress/
Maybe there are more pressing issues at the coal face, and perhaps the national ehealth body should think and act nationally (and rationally) rather than chase small local stories that others own.
'obviate the need for fax'? That's a bit dull and boring.
What happened to the axes and the bonfires? And the heroes?
This is an interesting tweet from @MyHealthRec
"Uploading information to your #MyHealthRecord is not automatic. Your healthcare provider needs to upload your health information.
Talk to your doctor about My Health Record today.
Learn more: bit.ly/DoctorMHR"
https://twitter.com/MyHealthRec/status/1188681869459644417
It's the first time I have seen them be so open about the fact that you have to be involved in uploading your information to your record.
Their profiles says "My Health Record is a secure online summary of your health information. You can control what goes into it, and who is allowed to access it."
The bit.ly/DoctorMHR link goes to a page that makes it clear that you can't really control what goes into it, only what doesn't go into it.
Your GP may decide they don't want to upload your health information and that all you can do is "encourage them to start using it to better track and manage your health together."
If your GP does not want to upload, I guess you could always change GP but, guess what, the new GP would not have any of your history.
The tweet had two retweets (one of which was by @AuDigitalHealth) and two likes. They're really setting Twitter on fire with their engagement with the public.
Do you mean "setting Twtter of fire" like the huge fires in California.
Post a Comment