This appeared last week:
Opportunities for women in digital health to lead a new frontier (and why it’s worth celebrating)
Last year, the inaugural Brilliant Connected Women in Digital Health awards demonstrated how women in digital health have led us through a period of vast uncertainty in recent times, and while we may be turning a corner on the COVID-19 pandemic there remains considerable scope for women in this sector to lead a new frontier.
Professor Mary Foley AM, Managing Director at Telstra Health notes for example a big opportunity to minimise the gender gap in the ICT sector as more women rise in digital health.
“Digital health has enormous potential to lead the ICT sector in the representation of women in influential roles, securing the benefits of gender diversity in improving technology and improving patient outcomes,” she says.
However, one of the most pressing issues facing the digital health sector in Australia remains attracting and retaining the best talent. To ensure the sector is continually evolving and innovating, it’s critical that women are afforded the right pathways from clinical roles and supported holistically to stay.
Part of this lies in recognising women for their achievements and providing a platform for further career growth.
That’s why Telstra Health is once again running its Brilliant Women in Digital Health Awards, with nominations now open to recognise 25 women from across Australia and their contributions in the health and aged care sectors.
First launched in 2021, the awards aim to support the purpose of the Brilliant Connected Women in Digital Health Network – to connect, share, inspire and celebrate – while raising awareness about the opportunities in the sector.
“Honouring the contributions of brilliant innovators, aspiring visionaries and exceptional entrepreneurs, the Awards aim to inspire women in their ambitions and to foster future leaders”, says Emeritus Professor Christine Bennett AO who will serve as one of the program’s judges in 2022.
Professor Jane Halton AO PSM agrees, noting that too often women’s achievements–particularly in industries like tech and health are overlooked. “This is an opportunity to promote our successes”, she says adding that the program aims to “embrace gender diversity in Australia’s health and aged care sectors.”
“Recognising the contribution of these change makers in a relatively young sector sends a positive message to the next generation,” echoes Dr Louise Schaper, CEO, Australian Institute of Digital Health.
Nomination criteria for the awards include:
- Technical expertise or contribution, with significant impact, in the health sector, aged care sector, or health and medical research sector.
- Emerging leaders influencing or being accountable for digital transformation.
- Making a positive impact supporting other women in the sector through mentorship or upskilling.
- Nominee has demonstrated innovation in developing unique solution/s to address problems or opportunities.
- Impact and influence in the digital industry – we want to hear about the work you do within your organisation and in the broader digital community
- success in establishing and / or championing a digital vision or innovation
More here:
My problem with all this is that I did not think Digital Health – as a discipline – suffered from gender discrimination or inequality and so I wonder what the problem is we are trying to solve?
I fully understand there are occupations and professions that suffer all sorts of gender inequality and discrimination (think mining engineering to aged care) but I don’t seem to see it in Digital Health – gauging by the female participation etc.
The leadership of the Aust. Institute of Digital Health make the point – see here:
https://digitalhealth.org.au/about/leadership/
(7 ladies to 2 blokes on Board and a female CEO!)
Please tell me I have got this wrong if I have, otherwise can we just more on to more productive matters?
David.
6 comments:
It is a fair comment to make David and a valid observation. Just the old guild model, I am sure they have secret handshakes.
Fear not David; you are quite correct. This Agenda is being driven by a small cohort of a particular gender feeding their own 'over-inflated' egos, thus 'proving' (at least in their own eyes) that they are leading the nation in Digital Health.
There is nothing wrong with having a healthy, strong, mature, ego. It's an important part of good leadership. However, regardless of 'gender' over-inflated egos exhibit a tendency to have a destabilising, disruptive, impact on digital health every which way.
How and why? Simply because they have a strong self-belief that they know it all (or almost all) combined with a reluctance to ask questions; thus leading to a deficiency in their ability to genuinely listen.
“Digital health has enormous potential to lead the ICT sector in the representation of women in influential roles, securing the benefits of gender diversity in improving technology and improving patient outcomes,” said Professor Mary Foley.
OMG please, please. What a lot of pompous rubbish. You've got to feel sorry for the English language.
Does this sound familiar?
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence
Out of touch with reality?
AnonymousJune 03, 2022 10:38 PM - on first pass that was amusing, on reflection you highlight a darker pattern in society which latches into movements and then takes them over, and distorts and corrupts until it becomes the very thing it fought against. Much like how counter culture music slowly become background music for corporate advertising.
These people are clearly playing the game you highlight and should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm not normally a fan of Pulse+IT (too vendor focused) but this weekend's newsletter has a very interesting paragraph
https://mailchi.mp/pulseit/04june2022
And to top it all off, the new Australian government has decided to change the name of the health department yet again.
We admit we weren’t around in 1921 when the first Department of Health (1921-1987) was constituted, but some of us were there to see
the Department of Community Services and Health (1987-1991) formed, followed by
the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1991-1993),
the Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services (1993),
the Department of Human Services and Health (1993-1996),
the Department of Health and Family Services (1996-1998),
the Department of Health and Aged Care (1998-2001),
the Department of Health and Ageing (2001-2013),
the Department of Health (2013-2022, during which time the aged care portfolio was sent over to social services and then promptly brought back again)
and now, ta-da!The Department of Health and Aged Care returns (2022-?).
Looks as though the only thing governments know how to do is re-arrange the bureaucracy without making anything better.
They are confusing activity with progress.
Post a Comment