tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post1847808730495015953..comments2024-03-29T09:18:22.495+11:00Comments on Australian Health Information Technology: The Clinician Controlled Electronic Clinical Record (CCECR). A Vital First Step.Dr David G More MB PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-17982422863536381032011-01-10T11:23:01.326+11:002011-01-10T11:23:01.326+11:00Hi Keith:
Here
"What NEHTA and the three tr...Hi Keith:<br /><br />Here<br /><br />"What NEHTA and the three trial implementation sites should be working on is delivering a <b>connected</b> Clinician Controlled Electronic Clinical Record (CCECR) to our working clinicians so they can make a difference to the quality and safety of patient care available to the community."<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />"That may start with Dr David G More MB PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-48127854456791790202011-01-10T11:10:25.520+11:002011-01-10T11:10:25.520+11:00The discussion should not be about PCEHR versus CC...The discussion should not be about PCEHR versus CCEHR: these are distractions, and the PC version (whether PC stands for "Person Controlled" or "Politically Correct") is a complete chimera. Dr Katekar's slides identified NEHTA's role. It is to develop national infrastructure to enable the health sector to move to “semantic interoperability”. If NEHTA and DOHA were Keith Healenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-29758619047051262852011-01-10T09:12:22.860+11:002011-01-10T09:12:22.860+11:00Bruce, I agree that workflow issues are critical. ...Bruce, I agree that workflow issues are critical. My assessment is that these issues were important in the failure of HealtheLink in NSW.<br /><br />I had actually meant to mention it as part of this blog, but there was so much that needed to be said -:)<br /><br />David.Dr David G More MB PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-12774929987194480232011-01-10T09:03:59.554+11:002011-01-10T09:03:59.554+11:00I agree David. I'd like to add the point that ...I agree David. I'd like to add the point that an understanding of clinician workflow is somewhere at the core of this entire issue. In my opinion there are two options where the PCEHR may gain traction.<br /><br />The first is that the PCEHR integrates well with existing clinician workflow and existing GP systems. The second is that the benefits are so compelling that the existing clinician Bruce Farnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03895794526347112930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-17660039739621565392011-01-09T20:59:08.098+11:002011-01-09T20:59:08.098+11:00David, I agree entirely. I made this point a few ...David, I agree entirely. I made this point a few weeks ago - the PCEHR needs to be "fed" by something, and to date, there is little in the way of clinical systems implemented in the acute settings, and a set of fairly proprietary systems, used in varying degrees of depth in primary care. There is little in the way of meaningful usage in Aged and Community care so far.<br />ahhh, the Paul Fitzgeraldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-42213581250370777272011-01-09T16:23:24.617+11:002011-01-09T16:23:24.617+11:00At times, I think we're in an infinite loop on...At times, I think we're in an infinite loop on the issue of PCEHR vs CCECR, regardless of the nomenclature used. As often happens, when a historical manual system is automated, the rules tend to change. <br /><br />CCECR perhaps best reflects a better, electronic version of how things are done today (simplistic analogy perhaps). PCEHR reflects a change in practical stance on who owns Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com