This blog is totally independent, unpaid and has only three major objectives.
The first is to inform readers of news and happenings in the e-Health domain, both here in Australia and world-wide.
The second is to provide commentary on e-Health in Australia and to foster improvement where I can.
The third is to encourage discussion of the matters raised in the blog so hopefully readers can get a balanced view of what is really happening and what successes are being achieved.
Quote Of The Year
Timeless Quotes - Sadly The Late Paul Shetler - "Its not Your Health Record it's a Government Record Of Your Health Information"
H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Canadian Auditor General Reports on Health IT Progress in Canada.
In brief
Introduction
Context
Shared responsibility
Funding for electronic health records
Reported audit findings
Planning for electronic health records
Implementing electronic health records
Reporting on progress to the public
Meeting important challenges
Going forward
Comments from audited governments and Canada Health Infoway
Appendix—List of audit offices and websites
Exhibits:
1—An example of what an EHR might look like
2—Infoway’s expenditures and commitments to electronic health records—as of 31 March 2009
In brief
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Weekly Overseas Health IT Links 21-04-2010.
With the iPad, Apple may just revolutionize medicine
Sunday, April 11, 2010; G03
Electronic Medical Records and Communication with Patients and Other Clinicians: Are We Talking Less?
April 2010
Ann S. O'Malley, Genna R. Cohen, Joy M. Grossman
A New Core Competency
Bell sets priorities for her role at CCHIT
Mobile health monitoring market on the rise
MacPractice medical applications now available for iPad
Health IT panel focuses on NHIN ‘trust fabric’
Records pledge in Conservative manifesto
Quality improvements need reliable IT: AHRQ
Scottish practices trial patient portal
Breaking Down the Barriers
Can Technology Cure Health Care?
How hospitals can make sure digital records live up to their promise. Because so far, they haven't.
By JACOB GOLDSTEIN
Time to Encrypt? You Think?
Survey Finds Benefits of PHR Use, But Adoption Remains Low
- Complete CHCF Survey Results
- "Survey Uncovers Strong Growth in PHR Usage" (Moore, "Chilmark Research," 4/13)
- "PHRs Can Help Bend the Chronic Health Care Cost Curve" (Sarasohn-Kahn, "Health Populi," 4/13).
Survey Tracks National PHR Use
Survey shows benefits of PHR adoption
Free EMRs: Too Good to be True?
EHR Certification: Who, What, When, and How Much Will it Cost?
Avoid the boondoggle
Keeping Medical Data Private
Electronic health records prepare for their close-up
New financial incentives spark doctors, hospitals to ramp up digitization
HHS emphasizes dashboards, new datasets in transparency plan
- By Alice Lipowicz
- Apr 12, 2010
BCBS of TN Hard Drive Theft Now Threatens 1 Million Customers
Karen Bell to Lead CCHIT
Providers Seek Options In EMR Vendors
Physician resistance to EHRs weakening: report
CHIME raises concerns about EHR certification
Doctors Still Trump Internet For Medical Advice
Public-health labs work on data sharing, interoperability
Report: Healthcare organizations may have a false sense of data security
Inquiry into transplant database errors
U.K. Investigates 800,000 Organ Donor List Errors
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, April 23, 2010
Misleading Advertising Comments
I try to filter them out. If you see one that has slipped through - let me know!
Thanks
David.
The Industry Raises A Few Questions On the COAG Outcomes.
An experienced industry participant and observer sent along the following a few days ago.
It seemed to me there were some interesting questions to which I had not much in the way of answers. So with permission here it is.
----- Begin E-Mail
Hi David
I think the COAG outcome has some significant ramifications for NEHTA, in that it has already been given whatever money it is going to get for quite some time
- hence it had better use it expeditiously
- with the new arrangement some of that money might possibly evaporate (but I doubt it)
Now that the Feds are to be responsible for funding ALL 100% of the Primary Care sector plus 60% of the hospital sector why should the states continue to pay 50% of the cost of funding NEHTA?
And take THE BIG projects like Vic's HealthSmart. What does the new COAG agreement do to the development and service delivery model of the one-size-fits-all approach of HealthSmart?
Is this a good time to stop for a rain check on IT development in health in each state?
In Vic does the HealthSmart strategy complement the concept of PHCOs and Hospital Networks as envisaged by the Rudd government?
Does each state need to develop a 'different' Hospital and Primary Care IT strategy or should the same strategy apply to all?
Who should be funding (this) these strategies?
Where does NEHTA fit?
What does it mean for the health software vendors?
Is it business as usual for the foreseeable future or is it timely to review the status quo pronto before events of recent days unravel too far?
I mean, let's face the fact(s), 'for health reforms to be effective they must be underpinned by the delivery of fast, high quality, integrated, health software solutions across the whole of health.
Should Australia be waiting for NEHTA or should a different approach be adopted?
---- End E-mail.
Anyone got some views, comments etc. I am sure there are also other questions that arise from this non e-Health outcome from COAG.
Have a great ANZAC Day Weekend – Lest We Forget!
David.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Submissions on the Health Identifier Service Regulations are Now On-Line.
The submissions can be reviewed here:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ehealth-submissions-regulations
The list of responders is well worth a browse and some of the issues raised are of interest.
What I see, in summary is:
1. A number of groups very concerned to be covered as Health Providers and in some cases this is going to be a little difficult to manage given the various qualification levels and the absence (as present of a registration entity.
Examples include the following:
Association of Soul Centred Psychotherapists
And
Psychonanlytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia
And
Association of Counselling and Hypnotherapy Australia
2. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has a few suggestions – In summary – From page 2:
Key recommendations
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner considers that the exposure draft regulations for the Healthcare Identifier Service enhances the privacy framework provided in the Healthcare Identifiers Bill 2010 (the Bill) to support the establishment of the Healthcare Identifier Service and the use of healthcare identifiers. The Office makes the following comments about the exposure draft regulations:
i. Regulation 10 could be strengthened by limiting the purposes for which healthcare identifiers can be collected. We consider that the collection of a healthcare identifier should be linked to the provision of healthcare to the individual healthcare recipient.
ii. The Office suggests that the title of Regulation 10 could be amended to reflect the content of the regulation.
iii. The development of guidelines to support proposed Regulation 10 is pleasing. The Office would appreciate the opportunity to be consulted in their development.
iv. We consider it is appropriate that Regulation 11 proposes a period of transition for active enforcement of penalty provisions. However, penalties should still be enforced in cases of systemic non-compliance.
v. The development of guidance about data security measures for entities handling healthcare identifiers would support the data security obligation in section 27 of the Bill.
The full submission can be found with this link.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/eHealthregs-008
3. The Australian Medical Association has now noticed just how much work is going to be involved in the red tape associated with the HI Service. They are concerned about the regulatory imposition and its costs – to say nothing of the scale of the penalties on offer!
See here:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/eHealthregs-003
One has to say their plea for some balance seems not unreasonable.
4. The Royal Australian College Of GP’s are also feeling they are a bit in the dark on a few matters.
4. Concluding comments
The College is supportive of UHIs, and looks forward to continuing discussions with the Department of Health and Ageing regarding UHIs prior to their progression and implementation.
In particular, the RACGP looks forward to receiving information providing clarity regarding:
• privacy safeguards and informed consent
• details of the communication strategy for the implementation process for both health providers and patients
• how implementation issues will be addressed, including the roll out of general practice software, installation, and funding
• application of HIs, including when to apply anonymous or pseudonymous IHIs
• how penalties will be implemented
• designation of a “responsible officer”.
Page 4 of Submission.
The direct link is here:
5. The Medical Software Industry Association has also noticed an issue that will impact them.
From Page 3.
“Our submission describes a number of existing models of health IT provision are currently operating in the Australian health sector. We do not believe these healthcare information service vendors will be recognised as Healthcare Provider Organisations under the current draft Healthcare Identifier Regulations, although they will have requirements as Healthcare Provider Organisations in terms of accessing identifiers.
In all these cases, the health information service providers are not seeking to access a patient’s health identification number for use themselves, but rather, are seeking a means within the regulations of establishing a technical mechanism for their participating healthcare providers to use the patient identification number when appropriate consent is given. The technical mechanism that is most cost effective and technically robust is for the health information service provider to be issued a single healthcare provider organisation certificate themselves and use methods internal to the application to deliver HI information back to the requesting user.
The Medical Software Industry Association submits that while these information service providers may have a healthcare provider as a staff member and could perhaps apply for a healthcare provider organisation identifier under these arrangements, healthcare provision is not the core business of these parties. While the regulations do not stipulate that health care provision must be the core business in order to access the HI service, our reading of the regulations is that this is the spirit and intent of the wording. In any case this model would be unsatisfactory requiring IT service providers to engage healthcare providers simply for the purpose of obtaining an HI-O. It is also noted that processes to allow healthcare software vendors to continue to provide services without and HI-O certificate will be costly, cumbersome, and less secure.”
Another set of issues to be sorted out.
All in all there are a good few changes needing to be made in the regulations in the next little while and a fair bit of consultation required to ensure there is not an almost universal practitioner revolt due to the additional workload and red tape.
This could be a real fiasco if not thought through very carefully!
David.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Senator Boyce Comments on Recent Publicity Regarding Medicare System Reliability and Safety.
The following article appeared on Tuesday morning (while I was distracted by COAG).
Medicare glitch affects records
Karen Dearne
From: The Australian
April 20, 2010 12:00AM
A SOFTWARE glitch in Medicare's systems in February has caused a major safety alert, with the agency set to notify thousands of doctors that some patient records may have been incorrectly updated during a three-day period.
Medicare told The Australian yesterday that changes to its online patient verification system after maintenance on February 6 could have resulted in an adverse test result not being matched to the right person.
While the agency believes there is little risk to patient safety, it will contact affected medical practices so doctors can check their records and make corrections if necessary.
"About 1300 transactions to date (have been identified involving) software that automatically updates patient's first names linked to clinical systems," a Medicare spokesman said.
"This figure may increase as we finish contacting all vendors to determine how their software treats patient verification information. Care is needed to ensure retention of the patient's name as they are known to the practice -- the first name should not be overwritten without careful checking."
Lots more here:
This has been followed up here:
Medicare slow to fix record bungle
MARK METHERELL
April 21, 2010
MEDICARE Australia has taken 10 weeks to alert 2700 medical practices of a bungle in the agency's computer system, which could have linked patients to the wrong diagnosis.
The problem has emerged at a sensitive time for the government, which is struggling to get agreement from doctors and others for regulations for the first steps of its national e-health scheme, the introduction of unique patient identifier numbers that are supposed to be introduced in July.
The potential for a mix-up between members of the same family arose after Medicare made minor software changes in early February. This had the unintended effect of switching the name of the patient receiving a service to another name on the Medicare card.
Medicare Australia said in a statement to the Herald yesterday that it was writing to 2700 medical practices to inform them and to provide details of their practice records where they may have been incorrectly updated.
Much more here:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/medicare-slow-to-fix-record-bungle-20100420-sru6.html
Clearly there has been a pretty major problem.
Now the Opposition has weighed in with the following release:
MEDICARE COMPUTER SYSTEM FAILURE PUT LIVES AT RISK: SENATOR SUE BOYCE
The health of tens of thousands of Australians may have been seriously compromised by a computer system glitch at Medicare which the government body had tried to keep secret for eight weeks, Liberal Senator Sue Boyce said today.
Senator Boyce said Medicare became aware on Monday, February 9 of a software problem which recorded patient details incorrectly without any indication of an error.
She said industry sources had told her that there had been more than 1,000,000 uses of the Online Patient Verification (OPV), Patient Verification (PVM) and Enterprise Patient Verification (EPV) during the period the glitch had affected the system.
"The Human Services Minister Chris Bowen has refused to apologise or even acknowledge this problem exists. His silence can only be seen as confirming that he is a prisoner of Medicare and not willing to stand up for patients against a bureaucracy more concerned with protecting itself than being honest and proactive in patients' interests."
"The results of this serious failure in the system have still not been completely checked and I understand from industry sources that almost 30,000 patient records are still affected as well as some 2,700 medical practices."
"However, despite the repeated pleadings by private software vendors in meetings with Medicare officers to go public, acknowledge the problem and alert health care providers, Medicare dithered and tried to cover it up for eight weeks before issuing a letter on April 1," Senator Boyce said.
"This letter must have been Medicare's private April Fool's Day joke because it tried to gloss over the problem by claiming that system functionality had been restored within three days of its being detected. What this conveniently ignored was that tens of thousands of patients' records had been corrupted," she said.
"Medicare has claimed that only 1,300 transactions have been identified so far as being affected by the glitch but there were more than 1,000,000 uses during the glitch affected period."
"I have been told that there are about a further 30,000 transactions already identified as needing to be checked . This is being freely acknowledged in the medical software industry and the medical profession. Originally, Medicare tried to assert that the problem only related to rebate claiming and that simply wasn't true as they have now been forced to admit. "
"I understand the fault meant that some pathology test results would not have made it back to the patient's GP or could have been attached to the medical history of a different family member. This glitch meant that only the first name appearing on a family Medicare card was recognised and all pathology results for others on the card were recorded for that person."
"Obviously, this could lead to misdiagnosis, no diagnosis, unneeded and possibly dangerous medication or no medication at all, depending on the order a person's name appeared on a family Medicare card."
Senator Boyce said to add insult to injury, Medicare had tried to infer in a statement published last Tuesday that the glitch was the fault of medical software providers.
"This is a blatant lie as all software that accesses Medicare has to have a NOI – a Notice of Integration – which means Medicare itself has tested the software and found it meets their standards. To try and suggest now that the glitch was the fault of vendors' software is an own goal. If the vendors' software was at fault, then Medicare is actually saying their own quality assurance processis useless," Senator Boyce said.
Senator Boyce said some software providers to Medicare had held several meetings with senior Medicare officers through February and March pleading with them to come clean about the on-going problem.
"It seems that the statement Medicare issued last Tuesday is the payback for these software providers who dared to question them," Senator Boyce said.
"The medical software industry and the medical profession itself remain deeply concerned not just about the ongoing problem but Medicare's attempts to sweep it under the carpet. This does not bode well for the future when Medicare has an even more central and enhanced role in the national e-health network," she said.
"All healthcare providers including medicos are worried about the possible effects of this ongoing problem particularly the inadvertent harming of patients."
April 21, 2010
It is really good to see the amount of research that Senator Boyce and her office have done - clearly speaking to the MSIA and so on - to form their views.
Given the way COAG has just ignored e-Health it is great to see the Opposition making sure there is some accountability in all this.
I hope NEHTA is the next target, as there are a lot of issues there that could really do with some ‘sunlight’
David.