tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post6885673976250097890..comments2024-03-29T09:18:22.495+11:00Comments on Australian Health Information Technology: All Their Own Work - Senate Estimates June 3, 2010 – Selected, As It Happened, Highlights.Dr David G More MB PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-484873304473046972010-06-16T09:51:53.078+10:002010-06-16T09:51:53.078+10:00Many hospitals are investigating or installing sca...Many hospitals are investigating or installing scanned record systems. We are already heading back "to BEFORE PIT was introduced!"<br /><br />Even worse, these scanned record systems will not be supporting CDA (which allows a document to be both human and machine readable).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-68992982788386183682010-06-15T12:21:49.853+10:002010-06-15T12:21:49.853+10:00Standards compliance is the only safe way to allow...Standards compliance is the only safe way to allow eHealth as sending data in native formats that may or may not be understood at the other end is unacceptable. There is no way you know the document has been received or understood and even formats such as rtf as not interoperable as the rtf viewers in many pms systems cannot reliably display complex rtf.<br /><br />All we need is some requirementAndrew McIntyrehttp://www.medical-objects.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-19565568431890552962010-06-14T11:58:00.622+10:002010-06-14T11:58:00.622+10:00Well Saturday June 12, if it is so 'wrong'...Well Saturday June 12, if it is so 'wrong' are you instead advocating ripping out all the existing systems that are not 'standards compliant'? That worked a treat in England, didn't it? <br /><br />Moving to standards compliance takes time, lots of time, and money, lots of money. The idea is to set up a trajectory for compliance that makes the change needed inevitable, and notAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-29888377815841788812010-06-12T15:02:36.795+10:002010-06-12T15:02:36.795+10:00The whole idea of sending around information in it...The whole idea of sending around information in its "native" form and then moving to standards is wrong. We still have many systems only supporting PIT years after having HL7 standards in place. If we make this mistake again its learning nothing from history.<br /><br />Its fine to have simple forms of standards based data which can evolve to semantically rich data but to create a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-4177469485477497512010-06-11T21:58:22.357+10:002010-06-11T21:58:22.357+10:00If we can have source information indexed, and ava...If we can have source information indexed, and available in 'native' form elsewhere(as opposed to being rendered in a common format), then that is a great leap forward on its own, and probably within the bounds of achievabilty. <br /><br />Get that done, say over the next 3-5 years, and we can move to more aggressively encouraging document standardisation and semantic interoperabilty. To Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-85857564142236370392010-06-11T16:57:48.756+10:002010-06-11T16:57:48.756+10:00I think someone has sold them on the IHE registry/...I think someone has sold them on the IHE registry/repository vision (XDS etc). They've even started using IHE words like 'tiger team' etc (not that there is anything wrong with IHE - just saying that I would bet this is the way they are heading).<br /><br />Anonymous and David makes the right point though.. you need to convince GP/path/rad vendors to be XDS document sources (and to Andrew Pattersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-3249256767512242042010-06-11T14:04:26.892+10:002010-06-11T14:04:26.892+10:00That leaves out GPs and Path / Radiology practices...That leaves out GPs and Path / Radiology practices. Hard to see them stumping up without some funds..<br /><br />David.Dr David G More MB PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-59278314732254391912010-06-11T13:56:16.410+10:002010-06-11T13:56:16.410+10:00Presumably the federal money is to create the IEHR...Presumably the federal money is to create the IEHR infrastructure. The cost of a connecting a feeder system like a state hospital EHR or a divisional EHR would be met by the owners of the feeder system, perhaps with some incentives to make them get a move on. Clearly the jurisdictions are going to have to put in more $ to connect their bits to the national system, over and above the federal Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-83335428667389014382010-06-11T10:51:44.226+10:002010-06-11T10:51:44.226+10:00Exactly, as I have been saying!
David.Exactly, as I have been saying!<br /><br />David.Dr David G More MB PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-15076156204856344792010-06-11T10:46:23.915+10:002010-06-11T10:46:23.915+10:00DOHA still don't know what they are talking ab...DOHA still don't know what they are talking about.<br /><br />There are two possible implementations of what they are describing (if you can call what they are doing description): <br /><br />First is a Microsoft/Google PHR.<br /><br />Second is an IHE Registry/Repository type solution with a patient portal.<br /><br />The problem for both of these solutions is where to get the content. $Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-14196094954655734382010-06-10T21:36:56.610+10:002010-06-10T21:36:56.610+10:00Profoundly depressing...Profoundly depressing...Jim Cocksnoreply@blogger.com