Here are the results of the poll.
Do You Believe The New ADHA Initiative On Interoperability Will Be Any More Successful Than Previous Efforts?
Yes 0 (0%)
No 56 (100%)
I Have No Idea 0 (0%)
Voters: 56
It seems readers here are convinced little has changed and that little progress can be expected. Very clear outcome!
Any insights on the poll are welcome, as a comment, as usual!
A good number of votes. and a very clear outcome.
0 of 56 who answered the poll admitted to not being sure about the answer to the question!
Again, many, many thanks to all those who voted!
David.
8 comments:
It seems readers here are convinced little has changed and that little progress can be expected.
I agree with the second part. The first part I am guessing you have not attended any ADHA events of late. The level of understanding has gone beyound a level they could build an understanding from.
I would not be so sure - ADHA employees a lot of Australia’s experts in standards and interoperability and is funding HL7 Australia and directs the FHIR work undertaken here through sponsorship and leadership. It is the only way to link up all systems in order to better share health data. Time to put a side the carrots and pickup the stick
Australia employs a lot of Australia’s experts on standards and interoperability? Really can you point to a few please?
Herbert do you mean the ADHA brings in on a consultancy arrangement experts? A subtle difference but an important one. I could bring in the best Hungarian poets but as I don’t speak Hungarian it’s a one sided arrangement
And that is why one would struggle to see this approach to standards working. While funding support is applauded, standards should be based on consensus, openness, and balanced representation. ADHA should not direct FHIR work and any standards funding should be at arms length.
The ADHA "directs the FHIR work undertaken here". I'd love to hear Grahame Grieve's view and gain an understanding of how/whether that is working.
Anonymous says:
"I'd love to hear Grahame Grieve's view"
Well, 'Herbert" said:
"ADHA employees a lot of Australia’s experts in standards and interoperability and is funding HL7 Australia and directs the FHIR work undertaken here through sponsorship and leadership. It is the only way to link up all systems in order to better share health data."
That didn't sound like the careful voice of a particular Herbert I know, so I guessed it was some other 'Herbert'. But irrespective of that:
* "ADHA employees a lot of Australia’s experts in standards and interoperability" - it's true that ADHA employs some people who are relatively expert in FHIR. It also contracts (not employs?) with several other experts (though not me)
* "is funding HL7 Australia" - yes. HL7 Australia is receiving funding for services provided to the agency for FHIR training, with additional places being available to other community members. Additionally, there is an MoU in place that anticipates further funding for services provided for services to the Australian FHIR community. That is getting going, but it could be described as 'is funding HL7 Australia'
* "directs the FHIR work undertaken here through sponsorship and leadership" - does here mean the agency or Australia? The agency absolutely directs the work undertaken in the agency, yes. Does it direct the work undertaken in Australia? I think that depends on how you understand the word 'direct'; the work in association will provide the basis for 'direction' for how FHIR community work is done in Australia. But that the agency claims to manage FHIR work being undertaken in Australia: not particularly.
* "It is the only way to link up all systems in order to better share health data." - well, maybe. Depends on how you understand those vague words. I mean, there are other ways to link up systems, but they are generally regard as less good ways to do that. But while the community works against itself by pursuing alternate technical standards, the overall price is bigger than the individual price. But if you take it to mean, the only way to link up all the systems is to pass all data through a central API hub run by a government department, that's always struck me that that kind of approach would be the only way to ensure nothing is ever linked up
So what is working? Not much, in Australia. There are some bright spots, but I don't see how any sober comparison with other similar countries puts Australia in a good light. Unless you take the attitude that being a slow follower while everyone else takes the risks is 'working' (with the concomitant result that everyone else might get benefits while we certainly won't)
and directs the FHIR
Thank you, Grahame.
It has felt to me that the ADHA is patronisingly taking credit for FHIR and HL7 work in Australia while actually not contributing much.
Post a Comment