The blog has now been on-line for a little over eight months and it seems like a good time to take stock of where it has come to and where it should now go.
What I know is that for a topic as absurdly arcane and Health Information Technology in Australia there is more than a little interest. The blog has two counters of activity. One counts the page views and visitor numbers on the main site. The other counts the number of reads and visits generated by e-mail alerts and RSS feeds.
To my amazement – since setting up the feed - there have been 6,413 views of the 62 different items published. This excludes all the direct view from the actual blog site – which is also seeing about 100 page reads per day on average.
In summary it looks like each article is now being read by at least 100 different people with the more “interesting” articles being read over 200 times.
Interestingly the origin of readers is international with a very strong Australian bias. (Australia 70%, US 11%, UK 9% Ireland 2% Rest 8% (India, Macedonia etc!)
On the basis of the feed activity the following ten articles (in order, so far) have been the most popular.
• E-Mail Security and Clinical Practice
• E-Prescribing in Australia – Is there a New Plan
• Oh HealthConnect! – You Have Done it Again
• How to Really Fail at Health IT Strategy
• What is Happening in Electronic Decision Support?
• Just Who Do They Think They are Fooling?
• Electronic Prescribing – What is Needed?
• Clinical Decision Support - A Major Contribution
• An Australian e-Health Strategy - The Outline
• NEHTA's Approach to Privacy V 1.0
This leads me to believe the readers of the blog are most interested in the strategies to be adopted in developing and implementing e-Health and in reviewing possible solutions and approaches. It is also clear many of the readers are interested in what is going on under the NEHTA and HealthConnect banners as well as the progress with the Access Card.
What is now needed are two things.
1. Suggestions as to what other topics should be addressed in the future.
2. Information and feedback on what is going either well or badly in the E-Health space in the “wide brown land”. In this context I am particularly interested in success stories that can be cited or emerging problems that could maybe be rectified.
I already am getting e-mail from places as diverse and Hong Kong and Canberra and the more I receive the better I can tailor the blog to meet people’s interests and needs.
Contact me with tips, news, comments etc (anonymously is fine via a fake Hotmail or Yahoo account if needed) at davidgm – at – optusnet.com.au. (substitute the “– at –“ with “@”). No information on correspondents will be made public without explicit permission!
David.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
HealthConnect Scottish Style – Cheap, Quick and Effective.
I can say I was more that a little pleased to see the following appear this week. It shows the canny Scots have not lost their touch and with decent planning and care good things in e-health can happen really quite quickly.
http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2238
Scottish emergency care records to be electronic by 2007
02 Nov 2006
The Scottish Emergency Care Summary is to become paperless by spring 2007, according to leading members of the Scottish Clinical Information Management in Practice.
Initially launched across Scotland last summer as a hybrid system, including paper and faxes, the Emergency Care Summary has already helped make out-of-hours communications more efficient effective.
Scottish health minister Andy Kerr said of ECS: “This new shared record means that NHS staff who need it to look after you can get important information about your health, even if they can't contact your GP. Health workers will also have a more complete picture of a patient's health and medical background.”
The minister added: "In the future, all health records will be stored and linked electronically and that will bring great benefits over the old paper files kept in different places and electronic records that are not linked up."
Libby Morris, chair of SCIMP told E-Health Insider Primary Care: “Following a public information campaign about the ECS, through leaflets delivered to all 2.5 million households in the country and a further 400,000 copies of the leaflet distributed to GP practices, primary and secondary care services, we were able to successfully go-live across all 14 NHS boards.”
The ECS contains important basic information such as name, date of birth, Community Health Index (patient ID number used in Scotland), medication prescribed by a GP and any adverse reactions to prescribed medicines.
The summary currently covers 2.5m patients, using a password protection system which is protected using the "highest standards of security". NHS staff will have to ask the patient's permission before they can look at the ECS, except in the event the patient is unconscious or unable to give consent.
Morris said of the early experience of the summary record: “ECS has made life so much easier for out of hours and accident and emergency staff. They can now have access to important information on the patients’ clinical history. Doctors, nurses and receptionists in out of hours medical centres; staff at NHS 24 involved in the patients care and staff in accident and emergency departments can all view records quickly and avoid risks to patients.”
NHS Scotland spent half a million pounds on publicising the new system, giving full details of how patients could opt-out of the scheme if necessary. To date, over 5 million records have been uploaded onto the system and only 174 patients in total have opted out of the scheme.
The system makes it possible to check who has looked at the patient's ECS. Patients can ask their GP to show them the information in their own summary.
…….
Plans are now in place to begin the switch over to electronic records and NHS Scotland is aiming to store and link full health records electronically by 2010 – beginning implementation in spring 2007.
A Gold Standards Framework Scotland (GSFS) IT development project has been established which aims to provide electronic patient records in one place helping those with cancer and palliative care needs in particular.
Staff will be able to fill in the patient record forms using the system, which can be saved electronically and then accessed by authorised staff. These will replace current paper-based tools and be integrated into existing practice IT systems.
Ian Kerr added: “GSFS will support clinicians to do the right thing at the right time, making it easy to have the best possible information available for forward planning, team review, consistent communication and sharing critical information.”
He also said that future work on the ECS will help to ensure that there is full integration with the NHS 24 advice centre and ambulance service databases. More data will be put onto the system over time, including lab results and statistics from nurse checks.
Morris told EHI Primary Care: “Patient-clinician interaction is important. Patients should know what is going on and who knows what about them. They must give explicit consent for information to be released, and trust the clinician not to abuse details which can be sensitive.”
The ECS has been piloted by various trusts, accident and emergency units and focus groups since its initial launch in October 2005. Kerr believes that the success of its national launch is thanks to the large amount of feedback received from patients, clinicians and administration staff. “
It would appear that virtually all the key issues that could block a successful implementation including proper public consultation and communication, a sensible approach to consent and privacy, having a clear implementation strategy and system wide technology approach and keeping it simple and quick have all be undertaken. The outcome seems to be great.
Well done to all those involved! Seems to me DoHA and NEHTA could learn a few things from this exercise.
David.
http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2238
Scottish emergency care records to be electronic by 2007
02 Nov 2006
The Scottish Emergency Care Summary is to become paperless by spring 2007, according to leading members of the Scottish Clinical Information Management in Practice.
Initially launched across Scotland last summer as a hybrid system, including paper and faxes, the Emergency Care Summary has already helped make out-of-hours communications more efficient effective.
Scottish health minister Andy Kerr said of ECS: “This new shared record means that NHS staff who need it to look after you can get important information about your health, even if they can't contact your GP. Health workers will also have a more complete picture of a patient's health and medical background.”
The minister added: "In the future, all health records will be stored and linked electronically and that will bring great benefits over the old paper files kept in different places and electronic records that are not linked up."
Libby Morris, chair of SCIMP told E-Health Insider Primary Care: “Following a public information campaign about the ECS, through leaflets delivered to all 2.5 million households in the country and a further 400,000 copies of the leaflet distributed to GP practices, primary and secondary care services, we were able to successfully go-live across all 14 NHS boards.”
The ECS contains important basic information such as name, date of birth, Community Health Index (patient ID number used in Scotland), medication prescribed by a GP and any adverse reactions to prescribed medicines.
The summary currently covers 2.5m patients, using a password protection system which is protected using the "highest standards of security". NHS staff will have to ask the patient's permission before they can look at the ECS, except in the event the patient is unconscious or unable to give consent.
Morris said of the early experience of the summary record: “ECS has made life so much easier for out of hours and accident and emergency staff. They can now have access to important information on the patients’ clinical history. Doctors, nurses and receptionists in out of hours medical centres; staff at NHS 24 involved in the patients care and staff in accident and emergency departments can all view records quickly and avoid risks to patients.”
NHS Scotland spent half a million pounds on publicising the new system, giving full details of how patients could opt-out of the scheme if necessary. To date, over 5 million records have been uploaded onto the system and only 174 patients in total have opted out of the scheme.
The system makes it possible to check who has looked at the patient's ECS. Patients can ask their GP to show them the information in their own summary.
…….
Plans are now in place to begin the switch over to electronic records and NHS Scotland is aiming to store and link full health records electronically by 2010 – beginning implementation in spring 2007.
A Gold Standards Framework Scotland (GSFS) IT development project has been established which aims to provide electronic patient records in one place helping those with cancer and palliative care needs in particular.
Staff will be able to fill in the patient record forms using the system, which can be saved electronically and then accessed by authorised staff. These will replace current paper-based tools and be integrated into existing practice IT systems.
Ian Kerr added: “GSFS will support clinicians to do the right thing at the right time, making it easy to have the best possible information available for forward planning, team review, consistent communication and sharing critical information.”
He also said that future work on the ECS will help to ensure that there is full integration with the NHS 24 advice centre and ambulance service databases. More data will be put onto the system over time, including lab results and statistics from nurse checks.
Morris told EHI Primary Care: “Patient-clinician interaction is important. Patients should know what is going on and who knows what about them. They must give explicit consent for information to be released, and trust the clinician not to abuse details which can be sensitive.”
The ECS has been piloted by various trusts, accident and emergency units and focus groups since its initial launch in October 2005. Kerr believes that the success of its national launch is thanks to the large amount of feedback received from patients, clinicians and administration staff. “
It would appear that virtually all the key issues that could block a successful implementation including proper public consultation and communication, a sensible approach to consent and privacy, having a clear implementation strategy and system wide technology approach and keeping it simple and quick have all be undertaken. The outcome seems to be great.
Well done to all those involved! Seems to me DoHA and NEHTA could learn a few things from this exercise.
David.
Privacy – The Global Perspective and Australia’s Position
The following report on global respect for individual privacy and the levels of surveillance of citizens in most developed countries and some others was released this week.
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-545223
Privacy International and EPIC launch Privacy and Human Rights global study
02/11/2006
Each year since 1997, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of technology, surveillance and privacy protection.
The most recent report published in 2006 is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs to almost 1,200 pages and includes about 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from law students studying privacy to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice.
This year Privacy International took the decision to use the report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all EU countries together with eleven benchmark countries. This project was first considered in 1998 but was postponed pending availability of adequate data. We now have the full spectrum of information at our disposal and we hope to publish the rankings on an annual basis."
The e-health perspective in this report centres on the impact the findings might have on the possibility of implementation of electronic health information sharing. With our Australian focus the specific notes provided on Australia are of interest. The highlight findings were:
“AUSTRALIA
The Australian Capital Territory became the first jurisdiction to incorporate a bill of rights that includes a right of "privacy and reputation.
New amended legislation has eliminated the warrant requirement for accessing stored communications (email, SMS, and voice mail), allowing non-law enforcement government agencies to access this information without a court order.
The government is considering launching biometric RFID passports at the end of 2005.
A new law allowed the motor vehicle and driver licensing agency to issue photo ID cards to non-drivers and retain personal information about them. A privacy group campaigned against the law, likening it to a State-based universal ID card.
National census administrators proposed to alter the nature of the national census to make it the most extensive data collection tool on any person. An immediate outcry from civil liberties groups caused the proposal to be dropped.”
Also disappointing is the Australia rated only 2.4 out of 5 on its efforts to protect personal privacy and manage unwarranted or intrusive surveillance. This score has us in the category described as having “Systemic failure to uphold safeguards” for privacy.
Areas where Australia was clearly deficient included:
1. Constitutional protection
2. Privacy Enforcement
3. Data-sharing
4. Visual surveillance
5. Communications interception
6. Law enforcement access
7. Travel, finances, Trans-border Data Transmission (especially bad)
8. Leadership
The entire report is worth accessing and a detailed review. In the downloadable .pdf files there is a very full report on all aspects of the Australian situation. The current state of our privacy approaches suggests we will face major barriers in making individuals comfortable with electronic health information management without very major reform.
David.
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-545223
Privacy International and EPIC launch Privacy and Human Rights global study
02/11/2006
Each year since 1997, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of technology, surveillance and privacy protection.
The most recent report published in 2006 is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs to almost 1,200 pages and includes about 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from law students studying privacy to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice.
This year Privacy International took the decision to use the report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all EU countries together with eleven benchmark countries. This project was first considered in 1998 but was postponed pending availability of adequate data. We now have the full spectrum of information at our disposal and we hope to publish the rankings on an annual basis."
The e-health perspective in this report centres on the impact the findings might have on the possibility of implementation of electronic health information sharing. With our Australian focus the specific notes provided on Australia are of interest. The highlight findings were:
“AUSTRALIA
The Australian Capital Territory became the first jurisdiction to incorporate a bill of rights that includes a right of "privacy and reputation.
New amended legislation has eliminated the warrant requirement for accessing stored communications (email, SMS, and voice mail), allowing non-law enforcement government agencies to access this information without a court order.
The government is considering launching biometric RFID passports at the end of 2005.
A new law allowed the motor vehicle and driver licensing agency to issue photo ID cards to non-drivers and retain personal information about them. A privacy group campaigned against the law, likening it to a State-based universal ID card.
National census administrators proposed to alter the nature of the national census to make it the most extensive data collection tool on any person. An immediate outcry from civil liberties groups caused the proposal to be dropped.”
Also disappointing is the Australia rated only 2.4 out of 5 on its efforts to protect personal privacy and manage unwarranted or intrusive surveillance. This score has us in the category described as having “Systemic failure to uphold safeguards” for privacy.
Areas where Australia was clearly deficient included:
1. Constitutional protection
2. Privacy Enforcement
3. Data-sharing
4. Visual surveillance
5. Communications interception
6. Law enforcement access
7. Travel, finances, Trans-border Data Transmission (especially bad)
8. Leadership
The entire report is worth accessing and a detailed review. In the downloadable .pdf files there is a very full report on all aspects of the Australian situation. The current state of our privacy approaches suggests we will face major barriers in making individuals comfortable with electronic health information management without very major reform.
David.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
NEHTA’s Annual Report – What We are Not Being Told!
The Australian National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) (The peak government e-health entity) released its 2005-06 Annual Report a couple of days ago. It is an impressive 24 page document that is clearly designed to let us know as little as possible about what is going on. A good two pages are wasted, at least, on the smiling faces of the directors and CEO for example – rather than some useful information (Indeed we get two identical photos of the chairperson – just different sizes!).
The document contains riveting information on the organisational structure of NEHTA, two puff pieces (from the chairperson and CEO) saying what a success it has been so far, two and a half pages outlining all the stakeholders who have been “engaged with”, and a two page 2006 – 6 update of all the projects they are undertaking.
The rest of the document gives is a graph of the exponential recruitment process (to now about sixty people) and two pages of guff on directorial movements and changes.
It then concludes with the usual statements of audit independence and a “concise financial report” – the real report seems to be secret – and an auditors statement that the accounts are unqualified and accurate. (This takes seven pages with only two pages of figures provided).
The 24 page report thus provides a totally inadequate two page report on what NEHTA has achieved with the almost $10 million it has spent this financial year.
Those interested can access the report at the following URL.
http://www.nehta.gov.au/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,92/Itemid,139/
As with all such documents it is not what is in the document, but what is left out that really matters.
Left out is enunciation of any real e-Health Vision or Strategy for Australia.
Left out is any indication of how the interoperation between the Private (read the GP, investigative and Specialist sectors), and the Public Health System is going to or could be made to work.
Left out are any performance measures and any statements as to how NEHTA is performing against these benchmarks.
Left out is any analysis of the business risks faced by NEHTA – especially those around not being able to get funding for the Shared Electronic Health Record and what would then be done with all this work.
Left out is any clear forward plan as to just what is to be delivered and when – with a staff of 38 then and 60 now – most having project management skills – one wonders why? (All there are a statements that some things have to be done by mid 2008 and others by mid 2009 – all a long way off compared with the pace we see in the US and the UK right now!)
Left out is any explanation of just what a little over $1.7 million spent on administration has achieved. Given that the total operational expenses were a little over $9 million it would seem a lot was spent administering.
Left out is any listing of, or rationale for the selection of, the clinicians and consumer representatives who have been consulted with a small number of time.
Left out is any evidence of a single improved clinical outcome or improved information flow to result from NEHTA’s two years of work so far.
Left out is why $7 million plus of member contributions were not spent this financial year. Work in this are is urgent and the opportunity cost of inactivity is high. Why so slow to get moving when the funds are available?
Left out is an explanation of the $4.5 million in receivables at the end of the year which is mostly members contributions owing. Seems some States are not paying promptly?
Among the interesting tit-bits to be found in the report are the following quotes:
“The company operates predominantly in one business and geographical segment being the development of methods to electronically collect and securely exchange health information throughout Australia.” (p21). Its nice to know what they are meant to be doing at least!
“The full financial report is available to Members free of charge upon request.” (p20). That means we want to keep the public away I would suggest – the members being the jurisdictional CEOs are to be the only ones who know what is going on!.
“NEHTA believes it is exempt from income tax as a public authority for the purposes of s.50-25 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This assessment will be confirmed by an application for a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office during the 2006 - 07 financial year.” (p20). One is amazed this has not been sorted out by this – but delay is consistent with the apparent slowness of the organisation getting ramped up in general.
“The company’s major liability of trade and other payables ($3,086,023) comprises goods and services tax payable on member contributions and general trade payables.” I really wonder why NEHTA would pay GST on its member contributions – they are grants from State to Federal Governments are they not?
I know bureaucrats thrive on letting nothing out that could result and any controversy or criticism – but this so called “Annual Report” has set a new bar for obfuscation and concealment.
NEHTA is a publicly funded entity which has now expended well over $20 million in its initial and now corporate manifestations. The public is entitled to a much clearer statement of just what has been achieved and what is planned in my view.
The total lack of any sense of the need to provide more than the scantiest accountability or openly discuss and consult on future plans and directions is amazingly arrogant and borders on a scandal.
David.
The document contains riveting information on the organisational structure of NEHTA, two puff pieces (from the chairperson and CEO) saying what a success it has been so far, two and a half pages outlining all the stakeholders who have been “engaged with”, and a two page 2006 – 6 update of all the projects they are undertaking.
The rest of the document gives is a graph of the exponential recruitment process (to now about sixty people) and two pages of guff on directorial movements and changes.
It then concludes with the usual statements of audit independence and a “concise financial report” – the real report seems to be secret – and an auditors statement that the accounts are unqualified and accurate. (This takes seven pages with only two pages of figures provided).
The 24 page report thus provides a totally inadequate two page report on what NEHTA has achieved with the almost $10 million it has spent this financial year.
Those interested can access the report at the following URL.
http://www.nehta.gov.au/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,92/Itemid,139/
As with all such documents it is not what is in the document, but what is left out that really matters.
Left out is enunciation of any real e-Health Vision or Strategy for Australia.
Left out is any indication of how the interoperation between the Private (read the GP, investigative and Specialist sectors), and the Public Health System is going to or could be made to work.
Left out are any performance measures and any statements as to how NEHTA is performing against these benchmarks.
Left out is any analysis of the business risks faced by NEHTA – especially those around not being able to get funding for the Shared Electronic Health Record and what would then be done with all this work.
Left out is any clear forward plan as to just what is to be delivered and when – with a staff of 38 then and 60 now – most having project management skills – one wonders why? (All there are a statements that some things have to be done by mid 2008 and others by mid 2009 – all a long way off compared with the pace we see in the US and the UK right now!)
Left out is any explanation of just what a little over $1.7 million spent on administration has achieved. Given that the total operational expenses were a little over $9 million it would seem a lot was spent administering.
Left out is any listing of, or rationale for the selection of, the clinicians and consumer representatives who have been consulted with a small number of time.
Left out is any evidence of a single improved clinical outcome or improved information flow to result from NEHTA’s two years of work so far.
Left out is why $7 million plus of member contributions were not spent this financial year. Work in this are is urgent and the opportunity cost of inactivity is high. Why so slow to get moving when the funds are available?
Left out is an explanation of the $4.5 million in receivables at the end of the year which is mostly members contributions owing. Seems some States are not paying promptly?
Among the interesting tit-bits to be found in the report are the following quotes:
“The company operates predominantly in one business and geographical segment being the development of methods to electronically collect and securely exchange health information throughout Australia.” (p21). Its nice to know what they are meant to be doing at least!
“The full financial report is available to Members free of charge upon request.” (p20). That means we want to keep the public away I would suggest – the members being the jurisdictional CEOs are to be the only ones who know what is going on!.
“NEHTA believes it is exempt from income tax as a public authority for the purposes of s.50-25 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This assessment will be confirmed by an application for a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office during the 2006 - 07 financial year.” (p20). One is amazed this has not been sorted out by this – but delay is consistent with the apparent slowness of the organisation getting ramped up in general.
“The company’s major liability of trade and other payables ($3,086,023) comprises goods and services tax payable on member contributions and general trade payables.” I really wonder why NEHTA would pay GST on its member contributions – they are grants from State to Federal Governments are they not?
I know bureaucrats thrive on letting nothing out that could result and any controversy or criticism – but this so called “Annual Report” has set a new bar for obfuscation and concealment.
NEHTA is a publicly funded entity which has now expended well over $20 million in its initial and now corporate manifestations. The public is entitled to a much clearer statement of just what has been achieved and what is planned in my view.
The total lack of any sense of the need to provide more than the scantiest accountability or openly discuss and consult on future plans and directions is amazingly arrogant and borders on a scandal.
David.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Personal Health Information Privacy – The Elephant in the Room.
It seems that on both sides of the Pacific there is increasing interest in, and increasing difficulty with, working out an approach, and the supporting technology infrastructure, to meet public expectations for health information privacy and security while at the same time permitting health care providers the access to information they need, quite legitimately, to provide optimal care. This short article aims to provide some talking points and base assumptions / positions that may be relevant in the very difficult policy area.
The key assumptions I would make are:
1. Technology can provide any level of information security and privacy that can be desired.
In 2006 it is perfectly possible, through techniques such as encryption, to secure electronic health information in such a way as to render unauthorised access virtually impossible. The military of most advanced countries, as an example, achieve this despite quite expert efforts to compromise their message integrity.
So what then is the problem? As I see it there are a few problems. First there are issues of cost. Military grade security comes with a military price tag. Second there is the issue of convenience. If a system is clumsy or difficult to use it will either not be used or the users will work out ways to make things easier for themselves by doing such things as using easily remembered passwords (which are easily compromised) or writing harder ones down in places where they are easy to find.
So while the technology is willing and able it is a truism that the weakest link are the users of system who either for convenience, speed and very rarely for malice will compromise the best designed security system.
The only satisfactory approach to address this risk is a combination of user education around the importance of complying with the rules along with regular audit, both passive via audit file review and active through deliberate attempts to subvert individual user discipline to ensure the educational program is actually working.
That users will take advantage of privileged access to information is well known with many stories of staff in the police, tax departments and hospitals accessing information out of curiosity or occasionally for more nefarious motives.
2. If the issue of privacy of personal identifiable health information is not frankly and honestly addressed it is likely most initiatives involving the sharing of health information will either fail or be severely compromised.
It is an article of faith with me, and I suspect with most readers of this blog, that an appropriate deployment of information technology in the health sector can improve the quality and safety of healthcare services. Central to this improvement being achieved is to put in place individual patient records on which clinical decision making can be based and on which decision support systems can operate.
If the target of our care are not entirely comfortable with the caring professions efforts to keep confidential their most sensitive secrets any electronic record initiative will face major, and probably fatal, implementation hurdles.
At present, as best I read the research, the key concern most citizens have is that, unknown to them, their private information will move out of their control and ability to access and correct as well as a fear of disclosure, profit from or use by unknown third parties.
Most seem quite comfortable with their GP recording information about them in his personal clinical system and most are pleased to be cared for in hospitals where they are not asked for the same details ten times a day.
Concern arises once there is the possibility the information moves out of the direct control of the GP or hospital.
For any such use and sharing of information citizens are very keen to understand just what is being shared, why it is being shared and that they will have an effective right of veto before it is shared.
There is already concern, on the part of some, that GP prescribing sets and the like are being shared, without the patient’s knowledge, with pharmaceutical companies for marketing purposes. One wonders just how the patient’s interests are being served with this sort of disclosure
3. It is important to recognise individuals have differing sensitivities associated with their health information.
Your correspondent is well past his physical prime and in the last few years have had a number of stays in hospital. Each of these stays was for investigations and procedures that are quite commonplace and frankly if anyone where to get hold of my full record the worst that they could conclude is that I should have stopped smoking thirty years ago and not twenty years ago. In a health sense I have nothing to hide and so do no care who has my records.
An individual who is their past has a mental illness, a genetically inherited risk, an abortion, an STD, HIV/AIDS, a cosmetic breast operation or whatever may feel entirely different and wish to either be able to exert very fine grained control on what information can be shared or indeed prevent any sharing at all. This is entirely reasonable and it is up to system designers to ensure such control is available. Again this is not a technical issue but rather a system design issue.
4. While one can design technology neutral Privacy Principles their implementation has to respond to a very different set of risks. In no sense does one size fit all in these circumstances.
There seems to be a view among policy makers that all that is needed are a correct set of Privacy Principles and all will be well for all. I believe this is naïve and wrong.
First there seems to me to be a very good case for ensuring that the level of protection provided for identified health information should be more robust and better enforced than say financial, purchasing or employee records. Not to say these should not be robustly protected but given the potential personal impact of disclosure of health information that even more care is warranted than may be justifiable for other information.
Second, as already discussed on the blog, the risks that are faced by electronic and paper records are different and do require different risk analysis and different responses.
Essentially what we need to recognise it that if private information escapes into hands that the owner of that information is not comfortable with the consequences can be personally and professionally devastating.
What is needed is the sort of education and auditing mentioned above and for breaches there needs to be a carefully designed regime of penalties and enforcement that is swift, has real teeth so it can act as a serious deterrent and which considers the impact on the victim of the breach properly.
Additionally real privacy experts need to be involved in system design and implementation. As well it is important that there be proper piloting and evaluation of privacy controls as they are practically implemented to ensure the outcomes citizens expect are actually being delivered in the real world.
Overall if I had one mantra it would be that “care must to be taken to establish and retain citizen trust”. If this is not achieved we ultimately may not be able to successfully implement and operate the systems the Health Sector so badly needs.
David.
Appendix:
What is discussed above I would see as an ideal situation. What is happening in Australia falls far short of the ideal. The two most egregious examples that comes to mind is the apparent continued use of non-individualised and non role based security provided to protect information contained in the South Australian OACIS system. When I last heard – and I am happy to be corrected on this if things have moved on – a clinical user at one hospital, once logged on, could access any record of essentially any type for any South Australian on the system. When last I spoke with people in SA there was not even the capability for a patient to withhold results from the system. (Note an Updated Comment was posted on November 23, 2006 and should be read with the material provided here - David.)
I understand some similar issues also exist with the Healthelink trial in NSW. Here again there is a single level of access – you can find any patient on the system and see all that is held – or not if the patient has ‘opted out’. Patient have no capacity to segregate sensitive from other information and some will inevitably be disadvantaged by such poor initial system design.
The following two articles in the Australian of the 28th October 2006 make useful supporting reading.
.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20655984-23289,00.html
Policing privacy
Plans to put the medical records of all Australians online face strong opposition from doctors and privacy advocates. Leigh Dayton reports
________________________________________
October 28, 2006
HERE'S the dream: your elderly mother suffers breathing difficulties. You take her to a GP who recommends a series of tests. The procedures are scheduled online, much like booking a flight to Bali.
When your mother arrives at the hospital for the tests, all her medical records are available to the specialists, again online. Results are added instantly to her "electronic health record" and a "cyber-script" is sent straight to her local pharmacist. The pharmacist checks the prescription against her other medications and has it filled when you drop by to collect it.
Meanwhile, your mother's doctor has reviewed her test results online and arranged a follow-up visit with a respiratory specialist who immediately has details at the click of a mouse. Online booking, online records, online service. Plus, neither you nor you mother has explained her problem numerous times, or waited for paper records to be sent by mail.
Here's the nightmare: you go to your doctor, seeking help for a drug and alcohol problem. There, you book online for specialist treatment at a discrete facility. The receptionist managing bookings at the facility recognises your name and tells a friend, your former – and very angry – spouse. Word reaches your employer's ear. You're fired.
Continued….
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20655988-23289,00.html
Patient privacy must be governed by a unified national system
Mukesh Haikerwal
October 28, 2006
THE Australian Medical Association has for a long time been calling for an overhaul of Australia's privacy laws and the establishment of a unified national system governing the privacy of information in the health sector.
Continued …
Dr Mukesh Haikerwal is president of the Australian Medical Association
D.
The key assumptions I would make are:
1. Technology can provide any level of information security and privacy that can be desired.
In 2006 it is perfectly possible, through techniques such as encryption, to secure electronic health information in such a way as to render unauthorised access virtually impossible. The military of most advanced countries, as an example, achieve this despite quite expert efforts to compromise their message integrity.
So what then is the problem? As I see it there are a few problems. First there are issues of cost. Military grade security comes with a military price tag. Second there is the issue of convenience. If a system is clumsy or difficult to use it will either not be used or the users will work out ways to make things easier for themselves by doing such things as using easily remembered passwords (which are easily compromised) or writing harder ones down in places where they are easy to find.
So while the technology is willing and able it is a truism that the weakest link are the users of system who either for convenience, speed and very rarely for malice will compromise the best designed security system.
The only satisfactory approach to address this risk is a combination of user education around the importance of complying with the rules along with regular audit, both passive via audit file review and active through deliberate attempts to subvert individual user discipline to ensure the educational program is actually working.
That users will take advantage of privileged access to information is well known with many stories of staff in the police, tax departments and hospitals accessing information out of curiosity or occasionally for more nefarious motives.
2. If the issue of privacy of personal identifiable health information is not frankly and honestly addressed it is likely most initiatives involving the sharing of health information will either fail or be severely compromised.
It is an article of faith with me, and I suspect with most readers of this blog, that an appropriate deployment of information technology in the health sector can improve the quality and safety of healthcare services. Central to this improvement being achieved is to put in place individual patient records on which clinical decision making can be based and on which decision support systems can operate.
If the target of our care are not entirely comfortable with the caring professions efforts to keep confidential their most sensitive secrets any electronic record initiative will face major, and probably fatal, implementation hurdles.
At present, as best I read the research, the key concern most citizens have is that, unknown to them, their private information will move out of their control and ability to access and correct as well as a fear of disclosure, profit from or use by unknown third parties.
Most seem quite comfortable with their GP recording information about them in his personal clinical system and most are pleased to be cared for in hospitals where they are not asked for the same details ten times a day.
Concern arises once there is the possibility the information moves out of the direct control of the GP or hospital.
For any such use and sharing of information citizens are very keen to understand just what is being shared, why it is being shared and that they will have an effective right of veto before it is shared.
There is already concern, on the part of some, that GP prescribing sets and the like are being shared, without the patient’s knowledge, with pharmaceutical companies for marketing purposes. One wonders just how the patient’s interests are being served with this sort of disclosure
3. It is important to recognise individuals have differing sensitivities associated with their health information.
Your correspondent is well past his physical prime and in the last few years have had a number of stays in hospital. Each of these stays was for investigations and procedures that are quite commonplace and frankly if anyone where to get hold of my full record the worst that they could conclude is that I should have stopped smoking thirty years ago and not twenty years ago. In a health sense I have nothing to hide and so do no care who has my records.
An individual who is their past has a mental illness, a genetically inherited risk, an abortion, an STD, HIV/AIDS, a cosmetic breast operation or whatever may feel entirely different and wish to either be able to exert very fine grained control on what information can be shared or indeed prevent any sharing at all. This is entirely reasonable and it is up to system designers to ensure such control is available. Again this is not a technical issue but rather a system design issue.
4. While one can design technology neutral Privacy Principles their implementation has to respond to a very different set of risks. In no sense does one size fit all in these circumstances.
There seems to be a view among policy makers that all that is needed are a correct set of Privacy Principles and all will be well for all. I believe this is naïve and wrong.
First there seems to me to be a very good case for ensuring that the level of protection provided for identified health information should be more robust and better enforced than say financial, purchasing or employee records. Not to say these should not be robustly protected but given the potential personal impact of disclosure of health information that even more care is warranted than may be justifiable for other information.
Second, as already discussed on the blog, the risks that are faced by electronic and paper records are different and do require different risk analysis and different responses.
Essentially what we need to recognise it that if private information escapes into hands that the owner of that information is not comfortable with the consequences can be personally and professionally devastating.
What is needed is the sort of education and auditing mentioned above and for breaches there needs to be a carefully designed regime of penalties and enforcement that is swift, has real teeth so it can act as a serious deterrent and which considers the impact on the victim of the breach properly.
Additionally real privacy experts need to be involved in system design and implementation. As well it is important that there be proper piloting and evaluation of privacy controls as they are practically implemented to ensure the outcomes citizens expect are actually being delivered in the real world.
Overall if I had one mantra it would be that “care must to be taken to establish and retain citizen trust”. If this is not achieved we ultimately may not be able to successfully implement and operate the systems the Health Sector so badly needs.
David.
Appendix:
What is discussed above I would see as an ideal situation. What is happening in Australia falls far short of the ideal. The two most egregious examples that comes to mind is the apparent continued use of non-individualised and non role based security provided to protect information contained in the South Australian OACIS system. When I last heard – and I am happy to be corrected on this if things have moved on – a clinical user at one hospital, once logged on, could access any record of essentially any type for any South Australian on the system. When last I spoke with people in SA there was not even the capability for a patient to withhold results from the system. (Note an Updated Comment was posted on November 23, 2006 and should be read with the material provided here - David.)
I understand some similar issues also exist with the Healthelink trial in NSW. Here again there is a single level of access – you can find any patient on the system and see all that is held – or not if the patient has ‘opted out’. Patient have no capacity to segregate sensitive from other information and some will inevitably be disadvantaged by such poor initial system design.
The following two articles in the Australian of the 28th October 2006 make useful supporting reading.
.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20655984-23289,00.html
Policing privacy
Plans to put the medical records of all Australians online face strong opposition from doctors and privacy advocates. Leigh Dayton reports
________________________________________
October 28, 2006
HERE'S the dream: your elderly mother suffers breathing difficulties. You take her to a GP who recommends a series of tests. The procedures are scheduled online, much like booking a flight to Bali.
When your mother arrives at the hospital for the tests, all her medical records are available to the specialists, again online. Results are added instantly to her "electronic health record" and a "cyber-script" is sent straight to her local pharmacist. The pharmacist checks the prescription against her other medications and has it filled when you drop by to collect it.
Meanwhile, your mother's doctor has reviewed her test results online and arranged a follow-up visit with a respiratory specialist who immediately has details at the click of a mouse. Online booking, online records, online service. Plus, neither you nor you mother has explained her problem numerous times, or waited for paper records to be sent by mail.
Here's the nightmare: you go to your doctor, seeking help for a drug and alcohol problem. There, you book online for specialist treatment at a discrete facility. The receptionist managing bookings at the facility recognises your name and tells a friend, your former – and very angry – spouse. Word reaches your employer's ear. You're fired.
Continued….
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20655988-23289,00.html
Patient privacy must be governed by a unified national system
Mukesh Haikerwal
October 28, 2006
THE Australian Medical Association has for a long time been calling for an overhaul of Australia's privacy laws and the establishment of a unified national system governing the privacy of information in the health sector.
Continued …
Dr Mukesh Haikerwal is president of the Australian Medical Association
D.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What is Happening at NSW Health with Healthelink?
In the last couple of days there have been two reports on the ABC related to electronic health records in NSW. To date I am yet to see any other reports covering what was said in a couple of news bulletins.
The two items were, in chronological order, as follows:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772953.htm
Privacy group urges patients to opt out of database
The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) says patients should ask their doctor not to put their records on a new electronic database, because the system is a breach of privacy.
The New South Wales Government says it will roll out the system, which will allow a patient's health records to be accessed from anywhere within the public health system at any time.
The chairwoman of the APF, Anna Johnston, says patients' records will be put on the database unless they opt out.
Ms Johnston says a trial of the system has failed to get the support of doctors.
"There are very real concerns amongst GPs that if they do participate in the system they will be in breach of federal privacy law which says you cannot collect health information about people without their consent," she said.
"The system has been designed in such a way that health service providers could effectively collect health information about every person in the state, not just those who are their patients."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773511.htm
Electronic medical record system can save lives: Iemma
New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says the introduction of a new electronic medical record system will reduce hospital errors and cut costs.
The electronic system places patient details on an internal computer system for quicker access by clinicians.
Private company Cerner Corporation has won a $40 million contract to roll the system out for the state's eight area health services by 2009.
Mr Iemma says it will provide one integrated system.
"This can save lives," he said.
"It frees up the time of the health care professionals to provide health care and not administration."
Currently only 4 per cent of patients are choosing to opt out of the program.
In the future, the system could be centralised and connected to the records of general practitioners.
The Australian Privacy Foundation has raised concerns that expanding the system could breach privacy laws.”
The interesting aspects of all this are as follows.
1. The normally “I’ll announce something good every day” Health Minister in NSW John Hatzistergos was not the announcee of the news.
2. The Premier’s press release refers to Cerner Corporation (a very large US based listed Health IT provider of predominantly hospital systems).
I believe what the Premier’s announcement is about is the final wrapping up of an aborted RFT-IT 190. This tender was released in May 2005 to obtain what used to be referred to as Point of Care Clinical Software (PoCCS) and which has been relabelled as Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software.
As stated in the tender document:
“Potentially four Areas could be seeking EMR implementations through the period contract arrangements resulting from this RFT. These are South Eastern Sydney Illawarra, Hunter New England, Greater Southern and Justice Health”
Some 17 months later we now hear that Cerner is to take up the baton NSW wide as far as clinical systems are concerned for all Area Health Services. This is obviously a good thing as having as much of the current NSW market as Cerner already had – consistency across the whole State system will provide useful efficiencies in staff training and the costs of staff – relocation as well as in the consistency of operational data available.
The delays and costs in getting to this point are, of course, just ridiculous. Six months should have been more than enough time to test the market and confirm (or not) Cerner as the sole EMR provider for NSW Health for the next few years. No wonder the Health Minister left it to his Premier!
This software is specifically for internal Hospital use and has nothing really directly to do with the Healthelink project which I understand is still battling with the issues raised by the Privacy Foundation and which threatens to become a considerable white elephant.
Cerner’s approach to security and privacy, along with its internal hospital operational role, should provide much less in the way of privacy concerns. Systems such as Cerner's provide very considerable operational support for in-hospital care delivery and clearly are something one would not want to take advantage of when in hospital.
I would be curious to hear comments from any readers who have better information – noting the useful confirmation of the iSoft comments made here from a previous insider that has been posted recently.
David.
The two items were, in chronological order, as follows:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772953.htm
Privacy group urges patients to opt out of database
The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) says patients should ask their doctor not to put their records on a new electronic database, because the system is a breach of privacy.
The New South Wales Government says it will roll out the system, which will allow a patient's health records to be accessed from anywhere within the public health system at any time.
The chairwoman of the APF, Anna Johnston, says patients' records will be put on the database unless they opt out.
Ms Johnston says a trial of the system has failed to get the support of doctors.
"There are very real concerns amongst GPs that if they do participate in the system they will be in breach of federal privacy law which says you cannot collect health information about people without their consent," she said.
"The system has been designed in such a way that health service providers could effectively collect health information about every person in the state, not just those who are their patients."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773511.htm
Electronic medical record system can save lives: Iemma
New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma says the introduction of a new electronic medical record system will reduce hospital errors and cut costs.
The electronic system places patient details on an internal computer system for quicker access by clinicians.
Private company Cerner Corporation has won a $40 million contract to roll the system out for the state's eight area health services by 2009.
Mr Iemma says it will provide one integrated system.
"This can save lives," he said.
"It frees up the time of the health care professionals to provide health care and not administration."
Currently only 4 per cent of patients are choosing to opt out of the program.
In the future, the system could be centralised and connected to the records of general practitioners.
The Australian Privacy Foundation has raised concerns that expanding the system could breach privacy laws.”
The interesting aspects of all this are as follows.
1. The normally “I’ll announce something good every day” Health Minister in NSW John Hatzistergos was not the announcee of the news.
2. The Premier’s press release refers to Cerner Corporation (a very large US based listed Health IT provider of predominantly hospital systems).
I believe what the Premier’s announcement is about is the final wrapping up of an aborted RFT-IT 190. This tender was released in May 2005 to obtain what used to be referred to as Point of Care Clinical Software (PoCCS) and which has been relabelled as Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software.
As stated in the tender document:
“Potentially four Areas could be seeking EMR implementations through the period contract arrangements resulting from this RFT. These are South Eastern Sydney Illawarra, Hunter New England, Greater Southern and Justice Health”
Some 17 months later we now hear that Cerner is to take up the baton NSW wide as far as clinical systems are concerned for all Area Health Services. This is obviously a good thing as having as much of the current NSW market as Cerner already had – consistency across the whole State system will provide useful efficiencies in staff training and the costs of staff – relocation as well as in the consistency of operational data available.
The delays and costs in getting to this point are, of course, just ridiculous. Six months should have been more than enough time to test the market and confirm (or not) Cerner as the sole EMR provider for NSW Health for the next few years. No wonder the Health Minister left it to his Premier!
This software is specifically for internal Hospital use and has nothing really directly to do with the Healthelink project which I understand is still battling with the issues raised by the Privacy Foundation and which threatens to become a considerable white elephant.
Cerner’s approach to security and privacy, along with its internal hospital operational role, should provide much less in the way of privacy concerns. Systems such as Cerner's provide very considerable operational support for in-hospital care delivery and clearly are something one would not want to take advantage of when in hospital.
I would be curious to hear comments from any readers who have better information – noting the useful confirmation of the iSoft comments made here from a previous insider that has been posted recently.
David.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
How Did iSoft Get into So Much Trouble?
The main news from iSoft’s Annual General Meeting last Tuesday is that the company is in discussions with possible suitors to be purchased and hopefully re-financed and stabilised. Unless a suitable suitor can be reasonably quickly located there is a real risk that many iSoft customers could find themselves “on their own” from an IT perspective. This would be a major distraction from the provision of patient care in those organisations and possibly even cost more than just money and inconvenience.
Anyone with any familiarity with the Health IT industry will be aware that this is not the first time there has been the need for merger and acquisition activity to bale out Health IT providers and regular readers will remember I pointed out the need for commercial due diligence as part of the vendor selection process a week or so ago.
Isoft’s history, from its web-site, is interesting.
2005
Acquisition of Novasoft Sanidad S.A.
2004
World-wide strategic alliance with Microsoft
2003
Merger with Torex plc
2002
Acquisition of Revive Group Limited
Acquisition of Paramedical Pty Limited
Acquisition of healthcare business of Northgate Information Solutions plc
Microsoft global launch partner, and the only European software partner for the Windows XP Tablet PC launch
2001
Dedicated offshore development business established in Chennai, India
Acquisition of ACT Medisys Limited
Acquisition of Eclipsys Limited and Eclipsys Pty Limited
2000
Full listing on London Stock Exchange
1999
Only Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 launch partner in UK health
Acquisition of CSC’s Australian healthcare systems business
1998
MBO by senior executives to create iSOFT
1994
Founded a healthcare information systems business within KPMG
What I see in this history is a company founded by some Health IT consultants that took advantage of the dot.com boom to conduct an Initial Public Offering and used the resulting funds to grow by acquisition of a range of smaller Health IT companies.
The Management Buy Out was worth just £12m, but within six years the Manchester-based IT group had won a £300m contract and pushed itself to the brink of the FTSE-100 with a market cap of £950m. It’s now only £100m.
Of note, early on, is the purchase of the CSC Australian Healthcare Systems business. This purchase was of the support contracts for NSW developed hospital systems, among other things. These systems were at least a decade old at that stage and would hardly have been an ideal base to build a modern Health IT business.
The acquisition of at least five different companies to provide a hospital solution would have posed a very substantial integration task to have iSoft offer a coherent hospital system solution and, as far as can be told, that task has not, nor will never, be achieved. What iSoft has attempted, instead, is to continue to sell products from their acquisition phase with the promise that customers who purchase now would be able to transit to a newly developed seamless product based on modern and highly advanced technology.
To stay afloat and support the development of the new product – termed Lorenzo – iSoft has used the maintenance fees from the older products in both the purchased and newly installed legacy product base (products such a iPIM etc). The problem with this is that they find themselves support multiple patient management, laboratory and other clinical systems – all of which consume available skills and resources.
Lorenzo has been in planning and development since 2002/3 and is now not expected to be ready for implementation until 2008, if ever.
What has gone wrong with the Lorenzo development? Among the factors I would consider to be important are the following:
1. The technical architecture, when Lorenzo was planned, was quite “bleeding edge” (Microsoft .Net and SQL Server etc). Successful Health IT developers typically stay well to the back of the bleeding edge and are very technically conservative to assist with stability and reliability.
2. The complexity of developing a full function, fully integrated modern Hospital Information System was probably underestimated. The successful systems in this space have typically taken very large sums of money to develop and have required input from a large number of clinical experts working with software developers. The use of remote development in India may not have been as effective as it could have been.
3. The need to provide an upgrade path from products that were still being sold to the planned Lorenzo may have made development more difficult.
In addition to the technical and development complexity facing the company there is also a sense that there was at least some overselling of what had actually been achieved. My personal experience with an iSoft Lorenzo demonstration (late in 2005) certainly persuaded me the product was no where near ready for implementation, and would not be when my client needed it. It took some very pointed questioning to have this fact made clear.
The following press release also could be suggested to be a trifle exaggerated!
“7 July 2006
iSOFT successfully delivers to 29 hospitals in one weekend
In just one weekend, iSOFT has installed patient management and clinical systems at 29 hospitals and health sites across Australia and New Zealand for four different health organisations.
The roll-out of iSOFT’s i.PM patient management solution to Greater Western Area Health Service (GWAHS) in NSW continued with 17 new sites going live. Calvary Healthcare Group at Hurstsville NSW becomes the ninth site within Little Company of Mary Health Care to go live with i.PM, completing phase two of its national roll-out.
In New Zealand, i.PM was installed and went live at three hospitals and one health centre as part of the contract with the West Coast District Health Board.
Waikato District Health Board in New Zealand was supplied with new advanced clinical functionality to its HealthViews electronic health record system for 250 users across seven sites to produce detailed clinical documents. Also, 500 users within the Mental Health ‘SMART’ programme can now access the documents in line with its goal to improve reporting of mental health cases across the district.
”This represents a significant commitment of our skill and resource capability over this period of time,” said Nigel Lutton, iSOFT’s Managing Director, Australia and New Zealand. “Given all of the systems went live on time and with high levels of success, it is a testimony to the skill and experience of not only our iSOFT staff, but also the customers that we have worked in partnership with to achieve these milestones.
“This not only demonstrates our significant industry commitment, but also shows the commitment of our customers to achieving healthcare improvement through the smarter use of information technology.”
iSOFT Project Manager Linda Gracie says West Coast DHB was a “dream” site: “I have never worked with customers that were so willing to take responsibility for the project and work hard to achieve their goals. This project was a true collaboration and a joy to work on.”
Wayne Champion, West Coast’s Chief Financial Manager, agrees. ”The dedication and professionalism of iSOFT’s people is impressive,” he said. “The company constantly hits some very demanding project milestones.”
The latest roll-outs at GWAHS bring the total number of hospitals there using i.PM to 35, with another 18 due shortly. The area health service is confident it will see the benefits of its IT investments in continuing decreases in the time patients spend waiting for elective surgery or emergency department treatment.
“Ready access to patient details and theatre appointments, for instance, is vital in minimising waiting times,” said GWAHS Chief Executive Dr Claire Blizard.
Meanwhile, West Coast DHB has also committed to using iSOFT’s clinical systems, with the first implementations due in August.”
I, for one, know of no patient management software, for something worthy of the name hospital, that can be installed on a weekend!
All in all the sad thing in all this is the bad name the likely failure of iSoft will give the Health IT industry and the additional work that many already stretched clinicians will have to undertake to make good replacements and so on.
One can only hope the new owners make the needed transitions as painless as possible.
The lessons from the post a week or so ago on how to avoid a "software lemon" seem even more important with the apparent failure of iSoft. It can happen to you!
David.
Anyone with any familiarity with the Health IT industry will be aware that this is not the first time there has been the need for merger and acquisition activity to bale out Health IT providers and regular readers will remember I pointed out the need for commercial due diligence as part of the vendor selection process a week or so ago.
Isoft’s history, from its web-site, is interesting.
2005
Acquisition of Novasoft Sanidad S.A.
2004
World-wide strategic alliance with Microsoft
2003
Merger with Torex plc
2002
Acquisition of Revive Group Limited
Acquisition of Paramedical Pty Limited
Acquisition of healthcare business of Northgate Information Solutions plc
Microsoft global launch partner, and the only European software partner for the Windows XP Tablet PC launch
2001
Dedicated offshore development business established in Chennai, India
Acquisition of ACT Medisys Limited
Acquisition of Eclipsys Limited and Eclipsys Pty Limited
2000
Full listing on London Stock Exchange
1999
Only Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 launch partner in UK health
Acquisition of CSC’s Australian healthcare systems business
1998
MBO by senior executives to create iSOFT
1994
Founded a healthcare information systems business within KPMG
What I see in this history is a company founded by some Health IT consultants that took advantage of the dot.com boom to conduct an Initial Public Offering and used the resulting funds to grow by acquisition of a range of smaller Health IT companies.
The Management Buy Out was worth just £12m, but within six years the Manchester-based IT group had won a £300m contract and pushed itself to the brink of the FTSE-100 with a market cap of £950m. It’s now only £100m.
Of note, early on, is the purchase of the CSC Australian Healthcare Systems business. This purchase was of the support contracts for NSW developed hospital systems, among other things. These systems were at least a decade old at that stage and would hardly have been an ideal base to build a modern Health IT business.
The acquisition of at least five different companies to provide a hospital solution would have posed a very substantial integration task to have iSoft offer a coherent hospital system solution and, as far as can be told, that task has not, nor will never, be achieved. What iSoft has attempted, instead, is to continue to sell products from their acquisition phase with the promise that customers who purchase now would be able to transit to a newly developed seamless product based on modern and highly advanced technology.
To stay afloat and support the development of the new product – termed Lorenzo – iSoft has used the maintenance fees from the older products in both the purchased and newly installed legacy product base (products such a iPIM etc). The problem with this is that they find themselves support multiple patient management, laboratory and other clinical systems – all of which consume available skills and resources.
Lorenzo has been in planning and development since 2002/3 and is now not expected to be ready for implementation until 2008, if ever.
What has gone wrong with the Lorenzo development? Among the factors I would consider to be important are the following:
1. The technical architecture, when Lorenzo was planned, was quite “bleeding edge” (Microsoft .Net and SQL Server etc). Successful Health IT developers typically stay well to the back of the bleeding edge and are very technically conservative to assist with stability and reliability.
2. The complexity of developing a full function, fully integrated modern Hospital Information System was probably underestimated. The successful systems in this space have typically taken very large sums of money to develop and have required input from a large number of clinical experts working with software developers. The use of remote development in India may not have been as effective as it could have been.
3. The need to provide an upgrade path from products that were still being sold to the planned Lorenzo may have made development more difficult.
In addition to the technical and development complexity facing the company there is also a sense that there was at least some overselling of what had actually been achieved. My personal experience with an iSoft Lorenzo demonstration (late in 2005) certainly persuaded me the product was no where near ready for implementation, and would not be when my client needed it. It took some very pointed questioning to have this fact made clear.
The following press release also could be suggested to be a trifle exaggerated!
“7 July 2006
iSOFT successfully delivers to 29 hospitals in one weekend
In just one weekend, iSOFT has installed patient management and clinical systems at 29 hospitals and health sites across Australia and New Zealand for four different health organisations.
The roll-out of iSOFT’s i.PM patient management solution to Greater Western Area Health Service (GWAHS) in NSW continued with 17 new sites going live. Calvary Healthcare Group at Hurstsville NSW becomes the ninth site within Little Company of Mary Health Care to go live with i.PM, completing phase two of its national roll-out.
In New Zealand, i.PM was installed and went live at three hospitals and one health centre as part of the contract with the West Coast District Health Board.
Waikato District Health Board in New Zealand was supplied with new advanced clinical functionality to its HealthViews electronic health record system for 250 users across seven sites to produce detailed clinical documents. Also, 500 users within the Mental Health ‘SMART’ programme can now access the documents in line with its goal to improve reporting of mental health cases across the district.
”This represents a significant commitment of our skill and resource capability over this period of time,” said Nigel Lutton, iSOFT’s Managing Director, Australia and New Zealand. “Given all of the systems went live on time and with high levels of success, it is a testimony to the skill and experience of not only our iSOFT staff, but also the customers that we have worked in partnership with to achieve these milestones.
“This not only demonstrates our significant industry commitment, but also shows the commitment of our customers to achieving healthcare improvement through the smarter use of information technology.”
iSOFT Project Manager Linda Gracie says West Coast DHB was a “dream” site: “I have never worked with customers that were so willing to take responsibility for the project and work hard to achieve their goals. This project was a true collaboration and a joy to work on.”
Wayne Champion, West Coast’s Chief Financial Manager, agrees. ”The dedication and professionalism of iSOFT’s people is impressive,” he said. “The company constantly hits some very demanding project milestones.”
The latest roll-outs at GWAHS bring the total number of hospitals there using i.PM to 35, with another 18 due shortly. The area health service is confident it will see the benefits of its IT investments in continuing decreases in the time patients spend waiting for elective surgery or emergency department treatment.
“Ready access to patient details and theatre appointments, for instance, is vital in minimising waiting times,” said GWAHS Chief Executive Dr Claire Blizard.
Meanwhile, West Coast DHB has also committed to using iSOFT’s clinical systems, with the first implementations due in August.”
I, for one, know of no patient management software, for something worthy of the name hospital, that can be installed on a weekend!
All in all the sad thing in all this is the bad name the likely failure of iSoft will give the Health IT industry and the additional work that many already stretched clinicians will have to undertake to make good replacements and so on.
One can only hope the new owners make the needed transitions as painless as possible.
The lessons from the post a week or so ago on how to avoid a "software lemon" seem even more important with the apparent failure of iSoft. It can happen to you!
David.
Friday, October 20, 2006
New Matilda Article on Health IT
The following is an article I wrote in response to the New Matilda (www.newmatilda.com) document "A Health Policy for Australia. It basically asks for more consideration to be given to the place of Health IT.
================================================
http://www.newmatilda.com/policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?
PolicyID=528&CategoryID=7
'A Health Policy for Australia': response #2 By: David More
20 October 2006
New Matilda is to be congratulated in taking the bold step of developing a health improvement strategy for the health sector based on rational and appropriate policy perspectives and values - values which I for one am extremely comfortable with. If ever there was a sector of our Commonwealth that requires a fundamental re-think health is it.
With that said, and whilst I am aware of the risk of being described as a hammer who sees the solution to all problems as a nail, I would like to suggest that the role of information and knowledge and the technology required for their effective management have been substantially underestimated in New Matilda’s present policy formulation.
Over a decade and a half ago the then NSW minister for Health, Peter Collins, described working in the health system as being similar to “operating in the dark” and despite all his efforts, as the Board Chair of the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, little has really changed for those operationally engaged in the sector although there have been steady improvements in the gathering of statistical health information. Delivery of clinical health services is an very information intense activity with all service providers needing both patient related (current patient problem, current treatments, previous illnesses, family history etc) and technical clinical information (disease descriptions and symptoms, drug information, the evidence base for treatments and so on).
A core issue that has been emerging over the last few decades, at an accelerating rate, is the amount and complexity of the clinical information required for good (and safe) clinical and management decision making. The knowledge management task involved in delivery of quality, safe, up-to-date, evidence based patient care is rapidly exceeding the capabilities of practitioners and is having a negative impact on clinical outcomes. This recognition is part of the rationale for the push in the US, UK, Europe and Canada to provide clinicians with advanced computer systems (electronic health records (EHR) with decision support) and to ensure treatment errors are picked up at the point of care delivery before the patient comes to any harm rather than later. It is now clear such systems can save countless lives each year but to date we see no thrust to sponsor adoption of such systems in Australia. (Indeed the Australian Health Information Council – the peak body in the area – has been recently disbanded as far as anyone can tell.)
Evidence from overseas very strongly suggests that implementation of advanced Health Information Technology (HIT) can achieve improved quality of care, greater patient safety and less risk of patients “falling through the (inter-sectoral and internal) cracks” in the health system. The evidence that, on most occasions, less than half of appropriate patients receive the best care for their condition based on the best available evidence is alarming in the extreme and needs to be remedied. Technology can help with this!
Additionally the costs of care and the overall efficiency of the health sector can be improved with the possibility of very significant savings being diverted to delivery of improved services (A recent study conducted in Ireland suggested the impact of better information flows and co-ordination of care could reduce the overall cost of the their health system by more than fifteen percent and there is no reason to believe the same is not true in Australia.)
Health IT can also play a significant role in empowering patients to better control their health information through the use of electronic Personal Health Records (PHR). The PHR can be used by the patient (possibly with their clinician carer) to record their clinical information in a secure fashion which the patient can then make available to other clinicians as they choose to ensure accurate communication of information between those involved in their care.
The use of EHR and PHR technology can also, overtime, improve the quality of managerial information available in the health sector and, with appropriate privacy and confidentiality controls, assist in optimising the decision making in resource allocation etc. Additionally such information can assist in the prompt detection of changes in disease patterns which may indicate unanticipated drug side effects or even bio-terrorism.
Lastly, Health IT in more mundane areas such as the supply chain, financial and human resource management computerisation offers well understood advantages which have yet to be anywhere near fully exploited in the health sector, especially in the private hospital, office practice and aged care sectors.
In summary, there exists a very compelling business case both in terms of financial and clinical outcomes for a much larger investment in Health IT (as is acknowledged by the investments being made in the US, UK Canada and Europe) to assist in delivery of the goals of the New Matilda health policy. Australia has neither undertaken to discover if the same is true for Australia (as it surely is) nor recognised the strategies developed in the late 1990’s have, with few exceptions, been comprehensive failures and wastes of money.
To not have fundamental importance of Health IT as a key enabler of improved Health Sector efficiency, equity, quality and safety explicitly stated is, I believe, a significant weakness in the present document.
David.
================================================
http://www.newmatilda.com/policytoolkit/policydetail.asp?
PolicyID=528&CategoryID=7
'A Health Policy for Australia': response #2 By: David More
20 October 2006
New Matilda is to be congratulated in taking the bold step of developing a health improvement strategy for the health sector based on rational and appropriate policy perspectives and values - values which I for one am extremely comfortable with. If ever there was a sector of our Commonwealth that requires a fundamental re-think health is it.
With that said, and whilst I am aware of the risk of being described as a hammer who sees the solution to all problems as a nail, I would like to suggest that the role of information and knowledge and the technology required for their effective management have been substantially underestimated in New Matilda’s present policy formulation.
Over a decade and a half ago the then NSW minister for Health, Peter Collins, described working in the health system as being similar to “operating in the dark” and despite all his efforts, as the Board Chair of the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, little has really changed for those operationally engaged in the sector although there have been steady improvements in the gathering of statistical health information. Delivery of clinical health services is an very information intense activity with all service providers needing both patient related (current patient problem, current treatments, previous illnesses, family history etc) and technical clinical information (disease descriptions and symptoms, drug information, the evidence base for treatments and so on).
A core issue that has been emerging over the last few decades, at an accelerating rate, is the amount and complexity of the clinical information required for good (and safe) clinical and management decision making. The knowledge management task involved in delivery of quality, safe, up-to-date, evidence based patient care is rapidly exceeding the capabilities of practitioners and is having a negative impact on clinical outcomes. This recognition is part of the rationale for the push in the US, UK, Europe and Canada to provide clinicians with advanced computer systems (electronic health records (EHR) with decision support) and to ensure treatment errors are picked up at the point of care delivery before the patient comes to any harm rather than later. It is now clear such systems can save countless lives each year but to date we see no thrust to sponsor adoption of such systems in Australia. (Indeed the Australian Health Information Council – the peak body in the area – has been recently disbanded as far as anyone can tell.)
Evidence from overseas very strongly suggests that implementation of advanced Health Information Technology (HIT) can achieve improved quality of care, greater patient safety and less risk of patients “falling through the (inter-sectoral and internal) cracks” in the health system. The evidence that, on most occasions, less than half of appropriate patients receive the best care for their condition based on the best available evidence is alarming in the extreme and needs to be remedied. Technology can help with this!
Additionally the costs of care and the overall efficiency of the health sector can be improved with the possibility of very significant savings being diverted to delivery of improved services (A recent study conducted in Ireland suggested the impact of better information flows and co-ordination of care could reduce the overall cost of the their health system by more than fifteen percent and there is no reason to believe the same is not true in Australia.)
Health IT can also play a significant role in empowering patients to better control their health information through the use of electronic Personal Health Records (PHR). The PHR can be used by the patient (possibly with their clinician carer) to record their clinical information in a secure fashion which the patient can then make available to other clinicians as they choose to ensure accurate communication of information between those involved in their care.
The use of EHR and PHR technology can also, overtime, improve the quality of managerial information available in the health sector and, with appropriate privacy and confidentiality controls, assist in optimising the decision making in resource allocation etc. Additionally such information can assist in the prompt detection of changes in disease patterns which may indicate unanticipated drug side effects or even bio-terrorism.
Lastly, Health IT in more mundane areas such as the supply chain, financial and human resource management computerisation offers well understood advantages which have yet to be anywhere near fully exploited in the health sector, especially in the private hospital, office practice and aged care sectors.
In summary, there exists a very compelling business case both in terms of financial and clinical outcomes for a much larger investment in Health IT (as is acknowledged by the investments being made in the US, UK Canada and Europe) to assist in delivery of the goals of the New Matilda health policy. Australia has neither undertaken to discover if the same is true for Australia (as it surely is) nor recognised the strategies developed in the late 1990’s have, with few exceptions, been comprehensive failures and wastes of money.
To not have fundamental importance of Health IT as a key enabler of improved Health Sector efficiency, equity, quality and safety explicitly stated is, I believe, a significant weakness in the present document.
David.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)