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"

or

H. L. Mencken - "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Weekly Overseas Health IT Links - 28th January, 2012.

Note: Each link is followed by a title and few paragraphs. For the full article click on the link above title of the article. Note also that full access to some links may require site registration or subscription payment.
-----

Medicine Jim, but not as we know it

12 January 2012   Shanna Crispin
Developers worldwide have been challenged to create their version of Star Trek’s medical tricorder in the hope that it will spark more innovation in health technology.
Three different versions of the tricorder featured on the show, but they all enabled doctors to diagnose diseases and collect bodily information about a patient by simply scanning them with a detachable hand-held scanner.
The Qualcomm Tricorder X Prize is offering $10m (£6.5m) to any developer that can create a similar device.
-----

Digital Health Revolution Long Awaited, Much Misunderstood

Jim Molpus, for HealthLeaders Media , January 17, 2012

First let's dispel one thing about revolutions: no one reading this column who works in healthcare is going to start one, except maybe in your respective capacities as consumers of healthcare. Revolutions come when a critical mass of people—18th-century French serfs or overtaxed colonists—decide there is a better way.
So if anything, the work being done by hospitals, health systems, physicians, and IT companies in creating electronic health records and smart devices is mere road-paving for a new way of practicing medicine that is hopefully not too far off—just in time to save healthcare from collapsing in its own inefficiency.
Eric Topol, MD, cardiologist and chief academic officer at Scripps Health, hopes that his new book, The Creative Destruction of Medicine, will help nudge consumers and a few other constituencies into seeing the true potential of digital health to flip the paradigm, as suggested by the book's subtitle, "How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care."
-----

Break down all barriers to health information exchange

January 17, 2012 — 12:05pm ET | By Ken Terry
Farzad Mostashari, National Coordinator for Health IT, discussed the obstacles to the interoperability of health information systems in a recent interview with HealthLeaders Media. To overcome these barriers, he said, the cost of HIEs must be reduced, their value must be increased, and the "preconditions for trust" among providers must be created.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), he noted, is developing standards that will lower the cost by making interfaces easier to build. At the same time, ONC is working with the states to ensure that all healthcare providers have access to HIEs, he said.
As for the value of HIE, Mostashari pointed out that public and private payers "are putting out new models for paying for care that rewards coordination [so] we're seeing the value proposition start to emerge for information exchange." He added that while trust among providers develops slowly, he believes it will begin in local networks and gradually spread.
-----

Despite $3.2B HIT spend in Europe, clinical IT investment lacking

January 17, 2012 — 2:40pm ET | By Dan Bowman
Health professionals in Europe are embracing integrated technology, but only to an extent, according to a recent report by the European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR). The report found that hospitals in western Europe--the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain--spent roughly $3.2 billion on health IT in 2010, according to an article in Health Imaging, but most of that spend went toward administrative IT.
Additionally, the level of equipment utilized "varie[d] greatly" between different countries, the authors noted.
"More investment in clinical information is needed to move today's healthcare delivery models to the next level of efficiency and quality," the report's authors wrote. "Industry calls for more investment in order to move to integrated, more efficient, safer and patient-centered healthcare systems."
-----

5 keys to getting your HIE capabilities up and running

January 18, 2012 | Michelle McNickle, Web Content Producer
Health information exchange is an integral part of many HIT initiatives, including the meaningful use of health IT and healthcare reform. While still a relatively new capability, the idea of transferring sensitive information securely is enough to make organizations nationwide take note.
Sonal Patel, vice president of client services at Corepoint Health, suggests five keys to getting your HIE up and running.
1. Have a strategy in place. According to Patel, HIEs have become the center of attention these days, and she suggests organizations take baby steps in this arena while developing a strategy that’s their own.  Whether it’s an acute care facility, a larger ambulatory care organization, or standalone centers that submit results to an HIE, all are in a situation where, “they need to ask themselves about the surrounding market, their environments, and what approach they want to take to the market,” she said. “Do they want to use this connection as a differentiating factor, or a capability to move forward? It’s a decision that’s made at a higher level as to where integration occurs.”
-----

Patient-specific, eye catching alerts less likely to be ignored

By mdhirsch
Created Jan 19 2012 - 9:29am
Want doctors to read the alerts they receive in their electronic health records systems? Then make them more patient-specific and interesting to read.
That's the skinny from a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. The study focused on the use of computerized drug alerts for psychotropic drugs prescribed to 5,628 senior citizens by 81 physicians. The researchers expected computerized alerts to reduce the number of falls by these seniors, which is a leading cause of injuries. However, physicians overrode most drug alerts because they believed that the benefit of the drugs outweigh the risks involved. Physicians also expressed a concern that too many drug alerts were "nuisance alerts" of little clinical value.
-----

Electronic alerting system improves documentation of patient problems

By mdhirsch
Created Jan 19 2012 - 9:23am
Using an automatic alert system in providers' EHR systems "significantly" increases the documentation of previously unknown patient problems, which could potentially facilitate quality improvement.
That's the conclusion of a recent study published by the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. According to the study, which involved 28 clinics affiliated with a large academic medical center, patient problems were about three times more likely to be documented when providers received an alert. "This increase is clinically important, since many of these problems are used for quality improvement and clinical decision support," the study's authors reported.
-----

American Docs Question Health IT's Benefits

U.S. physicians are more skeptical about the benefits of electronic health records and health information exchanges than their international counterparts, according to an Accenture study.
By Nicole Lewis,  InformationWeek
January 18, 2012
U.S. physicians are less likely than doctors in other countries to think that healthcare IT can improve diagnostic decisions, according to a survey of 3,700 doctors in eight countries. Additionally, only 47% of U.S. doctors report that healthcare technology has helped improve the quality of treatment decisions, compared to 61% of the other physicians interviewed. Only 45% think that technology leads to improved health outcomes for patients, against a survey average of 59%.
"The survey of doctors shows that more needs to be done to bridge the disconnect in perception and impact of health IT benefits," Kaveh Safavi, Accenture's health practice lead in North America, told InformationWeek Healthcare. "However, despite the high-level skepticism of technology, U.S. physicians have made progress in implementing healthcare IT for practices relating to disease management."
-----

New Apps Let Facebook Record Your Personal History

The site can now provide summaries and stats that offer a window on your life months or years in the past.
Facebook won the loyalty of more than 800 million users largely by getting them into the habit of visiting again and again to see the latest updates, comments, and photos posted by friends. Now the site will also let outside apps provide even more content, and it will encourage people to spend time looking back over activity from months or even years ago. New features introduced at an event in San Francisco last night will enable users to automatically record their eating, reading, exercise, and other habits over time, share them with friends, and review their previous actions.
The key to the new features is an update to the Timeline page that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg introduced at his company's F8 event last September. Now, with a user's permission, third-party websites and mobile apps can record details of what the person is doing and automatically feed that information to the person's Timeline page through a "Timeline app" that sends the data to Facebook and provides the necessary permission and privacy settings.
-----

Report highlights promises, perils of social media for healthcare

Posted: January 19, 2012 - 6:00 pm ET
A report from the not-for-profit ECRI Institute, a patient-safety and quality-improvement organization, details social media's potential as a public-engagement tool for healthcare organizations but warns that risk management is necessary.
The 20-page report "Social Media in Healthcare" from the Plymouth Meeting, Pa.-based organization cites a 2011 National Research Corp. survey that found that 41% of roughly 23,000 respondents reported using social media to research healthcare decisions. Facebook and YouTube dominated their social-media selections.
So far, most hospitals use social media "as an extension of their existing marketing and public relations plans"; physicians use the sites also to market themselves and their practices while often mixing in personal information.
-----
SATURDAY JANUARY 21, 2012 Last modified: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:23 AM CST

Nurse terminated for unauthorized viewing of TRMC patient records

A privacy breach by a “curious” nurse at Titus Regional Medial Center has resulted in letters to 108 former patients warning of a slight risk of identity theft.
Hospital Administrator Ron Davis relayed Tuesday that internal auditing procedures uncovered the misconduct.
“The nurse said she was just ‘curious’ and looked at records she was not authorized to view,” Davis said. “She has sworn that she did not do anything with that information.”
-----

5 ways to make your EMR more user-friendly

January 19, 2012 | Michelle McNickle, Web Content Producer
By Michelle McNickle, Web Content Producer
Created 01/19/2012
One of the biggest objections to the adoption of an EMR is its usability (or lack thereof), which is no surprise considering the ease of its predecessor: paper. Thankfully, there are a few ways to make your system not only more bearable, but significantly easier to use.
“There are several guidelines that have been published, [and each] cover particular OS, whether it be Mac, Unix, or Windows,” said Bob Hunchberger, a clinical informaticist for a 500-bed hospital. “If your application will be deployed in the PC world, it’s important that you adhere to the standards that are implemented in the Windows world. Why? Because Microsoft has ‘trained’ its users for more than a decade what behaviors to expect from applications that run in that environment.”
Hunchberger suggests five practical ways to make your EMR more user friendly. 
-----

5 Legal Issues Surrounding Electronic Medical Records

Written by Molly Gamble | January 19, 2012
Though the technology has been around for roughly 30 years, physicians making the move from paper to electronic medical records may still face some challenges — particularly when it comes to understanding the legal implications of EMRs. In Nov. 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the percentage of physicians who've adopted basic EMRs in their practice doubled from 17 to 34 percent from 2008-2011. The percent of primary care physicians using EMRs grew even more, roughly doubling from 20 to 39 percent in that same time frame.
A large portion of EMR implementation revolves around a seamless transition for physicians, nurses and other caregivers, so as to not disrupt workflow or take excessive time out of their day. These systems, however, pose certain legal risks for physicians and healthcare systems that should not go unnoticed.
-----

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Role of the CMIO

Although my business cards and my CV list the title Chief Information Officer, I was given the title Chief Medical Information Officer (CMIO) when I was hired at BIDMC in 1998.   Today, I serve three kinds of roles:
CIO - Responsible for strategy, structure, staffing, and processes for a 300 person IT organization
CTO - Responsible for the architecture of our applications and infrastructure, ensuring reliability, security, and affordability
CMIO - Responsible for the adoption of the applications by clinicians, optimizing quality, safety, and efficiency in their workflows
Although I've been able to balance these three roles because of the extraordinary IS staff at BIDMC, good governance, and a supportive CEO, it's challenging for one person to perform all these tasks.  Many hospitals and health systems are expanding their management team to include a CMIO.
-----
Friday, January 20, 2012

Q4 2011 Saw Surge of Federal Health IT Activity

During the last quarter of 2011, the federal government continued to implement the HITECH Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Below is a summary of key developments and milestones achieved between Oct. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011. 
Q4 2011 Health IT Highlights
The fourth quarter of 2011 saw a number of important developments, including the following.
  • IOM Publishes Report on Patient Safety and Health IT.
    On Nov. 8, 2011, the Institute of Medicine released a series of recommendations related to the effect of health IT on patient safety in a report titled, "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care." The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT commissioned the report and will use it to inform its development of health IT-related patient safety policies. 
  • HHS Revises Meaningful Use Timeline.
    On Nov. 30, 2011, HHS announced changes to the Medicare and Medicaid electronic health record incentive programs' meaningful use timeline. Under the changes, health care providers who meet Stage 1 meaningful use requirements in 2011 would not need to meet Stage 2 meaningful use requirements until 2014. 
  • ONC Announces Plans for Dashboard To Assess Progress of Health IT Grants.
    On Dec. 22, 2011, ONC published a notice in the Federal Register announcing plans to establish an "ONC Health IT Dashboard" to measure the effectiveness of grants awarded for a variety of health IT purposes. The Dashboard will include information from community college-based health IT training programs; individual physicians and hospitals; regional extension centers; state health information exchanges; and vendors that track health IT adoption and trends. ONC will use the Dashboard to compare the performance of grant recipients; develop a tool to evaluate the Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive programs; and estimate state and national levels of health IT adoption. Researchers and the public will have access to the Dashboard. ONC will de-identify and aggregate any publicly accessible information.
-----

CfH issues tablets safety warning

13 January 2012   Shanna Crispin
NHS Connecting for Health has warned trusts about the risks of using tablet devices - saying they are much more likely to be stolen and to be used to inadvertently share patient information than other technology.
The ‘good practice guidelines’ say the use of tablets in commercial organisations is increasing and there is “pressure for NHS organisations to follow suit.”
But it warns: “These devices present a number of issues that are not necessarily found in more traditional technology solutions.”
The document states tablet devices are “inherently less secure” than traditional IT equipment and that this means they are not necessarily suitable for accessing sensitive and patient identifiable data.
-----

How to turn a tablet into a security tool

January 12, 2012 | Marcus Ranum, CSO, Tenable Network Security
It seems like it was just the other day that I was being asked whether laptop computing was going to have a big impact on security. Of course, it did, but mostly on the unprepared - the organizations that didn't ask, or even think about the question, ‘why would making computing more portable, more personal, and easier to steal/lose present a problem?’
By the mid-1990s I was simply answering the question with a sound-bite: "Distributed data is distributed vulnerability." Indeed, the last decade has treated us to an endless litany of breach disclosures along the lines of "laptop with customer database stolen from contractor's car," or "customer database found on USB stick in airport." Sobering news, always.
Twenty years later, portable devices have 10,000 times as much storage space, are smaller and shinier, and may be in an easier-to-lose form factor, such as a telephone-oid or tablet. Equally as important – there are more of them, and simple probability across your device population means that more will go astray, and do so with more data on them.
-----

Texas doctors lead open-notes movement

By Todd Ackerman, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Published 10:01 p.m., Monday, January 16, 2012
Texas doctors are at the vanguard of what U.S. researchers say is an inevitable revolution to make consultation notes and other records easily accessible to patients.
The idea, at odds with the decades-old attitude that medical records belong to doctors because they're the only ones trained to interpret them, is being tested in an ongoing national study that has already confirmed that patients want to read their notes but most doctors are still resistant.
"Many doctors aren't there yet, but this is going to happen, this can't be stopped," said Jan Walker, a nurse at Harvard Medical School's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the study's lead author. "In today's more transparent society, patients want this - and it should be to everyone's benefit."

3 ways social media is transforming the doctor-patient relationship

January 17, 2012 | Chris Foster, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton
Much like other advances in health information technology (HIT) such as electronic health records and telemedicine, social media is changing how doctors and patients interact. Social media empowers patients to seek out information, make more informed decisions, and partner with their health care providers on managing their care.
Historically, medical care has been primarily physician-centric — “take the doctor’s orders”; however, more recently, patients are playing an increasingly more active role in their treatment. At its very core, social media is a driver of a patient-centered model, promoting two-way continuous communication between supportive community networks, health care providers and patients through the most current, transparent, and immediate information available.
-----

Sculley: Health Tech Needs Usability, Not Flash

IT companies need to better understand the healthcare industry before they can change it, former Apple CEO tells CES audience.
By Neil Versel,  InformationWeek
January 13, 2012
Former Apple and PepsiCo CEO John Sculley, now an investor in several healthcare companies, believes in the power of consumer-facing IT to transform parts of healthcare. But this cannot happen unless technology developers understand this complex industry and the vendors engage the people who actually pay for health services, he said.
"The thing that is missing is getting the people with the domain expertise aligned with the people with technological know-how to turn ideas into branded services," Sculley said Thursday in Las Vegas at the Digital Healthcare Summit adjunct to 2012 International CES.
-----

11 healthcare data trends in 2012

By Michelle McNickle, Web Content Producer
Created 01/06/2012
Mobile devices, data breaches and patient privacy rights were some of the most talked-about topics in health IT in 2011, and according to expert opinions complied by ID Experts, 2012 won’t be any different. 
In fact, experts continue to predict an upswing in mobile and social media usage, response plans, and even reputation fallout. Eleven industry experts outlined healthcare data trends to look for in 2012.
1. Mobile devices could mean trouble. Healthcare organizations won’t be immune to data breach risks caused by the increased use of mobile devices in the work place, said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute. A recent study confirms that 81 percent of healthcare providers use mobile devices to collect, store, and/or transmit some form of personal health information (PHI). But, 49 percent of those admit they’re not taking steps to secure their devices. 
-----
  • JANUARY 19, 2012

Health Care Is Next Frontier for Big Data

·         By BEN ROONEY

Big Data—the ability to collect, process and interpret massive amounts of information—is one of today's most important technological drivers. While companies see it as a way of detecting weak market signals, one of the biggest potential areas of application for society is health care.
Historically, health care has been delivered by one doctor looking at one patient with only the information the doctor has at that time. But how much better if the doctor had access to information about thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people?
Acquiring medical data has, historically, been problematic. It is wrapped in layers of regulations and stringent safeguards and is expensive to collect.
-----

PACS market to hit $5.4B by 2017

January 18, 2012 — 2:45pm ET | By Dan Bowman
The worldwide market for picture archiving and communications systems (PACS), which continue to grow in popularity, is expected to reach $5.4 billion by 2017, up from $2.8 billion in 2010, according to a new report from GlobalData.
A combination of government initiatives to adopt IT in healthcare and advancements in technology as a whole will be two of the major factors contributing to such growth, the report's authors said. Specifically, as hospitals look to save money with regard to storing images, PACS adoption will continue to thrive, they said.
-----

Bacon calls for halt on Millennium

19 January 2012  
Conservative MP Richard Bacon has called for a halt to all Cerner Millennium deployments following appointment problems and delays at the latest trusts to go-live with the system - North Bristol and Oxford.
Bacon, who has followed the progress of the National Programme for IT in the NHS for many years, said the two hospitals had been “brought to their knees” by the implementation of the new electronic patient record system.
“These deployments need to be stopped until we are sure that they can be managed safely,” he said; adding that the system should be "switched off" if it was not working for patients.
-----

Hack Attacks Now Leading Cause Of Data Breaches

Exclusive: Identity Theft Resource Center identifies hacking, followed by data lost in transit and insider attacks, as the leading data breach culprits in 2011.
By Mathew J. Schwartz,  InformationWeek
January 12, 2012
The majority of data breaches stem from hack attacks, followed by data that's lost while physically in transit. That's according to a forthcoming study from the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), which assessed all known information relating to the 419 breaches that were publicly disclosed in the United States in 2011. A copy of the report was provided to InformationWeek in advance of its release.
Last year, data breaches triggered by hacking--defined by the ITRC as "a targeted intrusion into a data network," including card-skimming attacks--were at an all-time high, and responsible for 26% of all known data breach incidents. The next leading cause of breaches was data on the move (18%)--meaning electronic storage devices, laptops, or paper reports that were lost in transit--followed by insider theft (13%).
Overall, malicious attacks--counting not just hack attacks but also insider attacks--accounted for 40% of publicly disclosed breaches, while 20% of breaches were the result of accidental data exposure.
-----
Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Meaningful Use Incentives Increasing, but Disparities Persist

Despite a sluggish start, federal incentive payments to hospitals have been rising significantly in recent months.
Data from CMS show that the nation's hospitals received nearly $741 million in incentive payments during October and November 2011 for implementing electronic health records. That figure for those two months is about $70 million more than what hospitals received during the first full fiscal year of the program, from its launch in October 2010 through September 2011.
But aggregate data on the incentive program obscure wide variations in how individual states are performing under the incentive program. Closer analysis of the CMS data shows that some states' hospitals have done well in accessing incentive payments, while hospitals in other states have received little or no funding. The analysis of the EHR incentive program payments to hospitals was prompted by results from quarterly surveys on meaningful use conducted by the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives.
-----

Vendors on a Buying Spree

Four more health information technology vendors have announced acquisitions, bringing the total during the first 12 days of 2012 to at least 10 deals.
Payer vendor The TriZetto Group has acquired Kocsis Consulting Group of Hudsonville, Mich., for an undisclosed sum. Kocsis offers training, compliance and change management software to bridge the gap between implementing new information systems and using them to their potential. Software modules cover user training, business/change readiness, process improvements, policy and procedure documentation, and compliance readiness such as HIPAA 5010 and ICD-10.
-----
By Joseph Conn

The IT VistA gets larger

Here are a few quick bits of news from last week about federal electronic health-record system incentive payments.
The 24th meeting of the WorldVistA community wrapped up a three-day run Sunday at University of California Davis. WorldVistA is a not-for-profit organization founded in 2002 to promote the use of an open-source version of the VistA system outside the Veterans Affairs Department, where the VA has been developing the EHR for more than 30 years.
Open-source maven Roger Maduro reported from the meeting that Oroville Hospital donated $150,000 to WorldVistA. Its members contributed or contracted for the production of code modifications needed to certify WorldVistA EHR software as capable of meeting federal meaningful-use criteria and to help IT staffers at 133-bed Oroville configure the system to their needs.
-----

A systematic approach to quality improvement

A look at successes, strategies behind some of the Thomson Reuters 15 Top Health Systems
By Rebecca Vesely
Posted: January 14, 2012 - 12:01 am ET
About a decade ago, the board of directors of Tanner Health System in Carrollton, Ga., decided to make an absolute commitment to patient satisfaction and quality.
That commitment has gotten results, with the three-hospital system for the first time being named among Thomson Reuters' 15 Top Health Systems in the nation.
“We've been getting some confirmation that this long journey toward excellence is paying off,” says Loy Howard, Tanner's president and CEO. “In the journey of quality improvement, it's hard work. It really has to be, in my opinion, the focus of the whole organization.”
-----

Digitizing Health Records, Before It Was Cool

By MILT FREUDENHEIM
Published: January 14, 2012
VERONA, Wis.
THE push to move the nation from paper to electronic health records is serious business. That’s why a first look at the campus of Epic Systems comes as something of a jolt.
A treehouse for meetings? A two-story spiral slide just for fun? What’s that big statue of the Cat in the Hat doing here?
Don’t let these elements of whimsy fool you. Operating on 800 acres of former farmland near Madison, Wis., Epic Systems supplies electronic records for large health care providers like the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, the Cleveland Clinic, and Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, as well as health plans like Kaiser Permanente and medical groups like the Weill Cornell Physicians Organization in New York. In fact, Epic’s reputation as a fun-filled, creative place to work helps draw programmers who might otherwise take jobs at Google, Microsoft or Facebook.
-----

How to sell mobile health devices even when hospitals fear theft

Thefts of portable digital health devices, like smartphones and tablets, accounted for half of data breaches in 2011. That kind of mobility is hurting the adoption of mobile health products.
Russell Dollinger has been working on strategies around the problem. Dollinger’s California startup Ingenuitor, which produces books and digital devices to overcome language barriers in hospital settings and medical situations, had a customer back off a mobile purchase over fears of device theft.
 “We present our software to hospitals on carts and portable units,”Dollinger said. “One COO wanted portable devices. The next time we presented to the same hospital, the previous COO had left and the new one said, ‘We have to have a cart-based device.’ It was the same place, but the attitude changed because they were concerned about theft.”
-----

Enjoy!
David.

Friday, January 27, 2012

The Approach Being Adopted To Health Information Sharing Being Adopted by Hong Kong.

The following highly relevant article appeared a week or two ago

"New and improved" data protection regime? Hong Kong government launches public consultation on e-health record sharing

On 12 December 2011, the Hong Kong Food and Health Bureau launched a two-month public consultation on the Legal, Privacy and Security Framework for a territory-wide patient-orientated Electronic Health Record (eHR) Sharing System as part of a proposed reform of the Hong Kong healthcare system.    
What is eHR sharing?
An eHR is a record in electronic format containing health-related data of an individual. It is anticipated that the eHR Sharing System will provide an essential infrastructure for access and sharing of patients' health data by authorised healthcare providers in both the public and private sectors. The goal is to facilitate seamless interfacing between different healthcare providers, enable more efficient treatment and diagnosis and reduce duplicative diagnostic tests and data gathering.
The Legal, Privacy and Security Framework (the Framework)
Whilst the proposed eHR Sharing System provides functional benefits, it also raises privacy concerns. To address these, and recognising that the nature of patients' health data and their sharing by healthcare providers would require more specific and further safeguards on privacy and security, the Government plans to legislate specifically a framework for the eHR Sharing System to complement and supplement the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (PDPO), where there are currently general safeguards for personal data privacy applicable across all sectors.
Key Principles of the Framework
The following key principles are proposed to be adopted in the Framework:
  1. Information to be provided to patients: Healthcare providers shall provide an information notice to each patient setting out the scope, purpose and use of eHR, the rights of patients, privacy and security safeguards, and must not share any patient's health data to anyone without the patient's consent (see below).
  2. Patient's consent: Participation in eHR sharing shall be strictly voluntary and must be based on express and informed consent. In relation to such consent:
    1. A patient giving consent must give either: (i) a time-limited one-year rolling consent which will lapse after one year from the date when the healthcare provider last provided care to the patient; or (ii) an open-ended consent that will continue to remain valid until expressly revoked by the patient.
    2. For minors below the age of 16 and mentally incapacitated persons, consent shall be given by substitute decision makers (SDMs), e.g. persons with parental responsibilities over the subject minors and other immediate family members of patients.
    3. If a patient is referred by provider A to provider B for healthcare, provider A may specify the part of eHR where provider B will have access to.
    4. Only under exceptional circumstances and in strict compliance with the PDPO, such as in an emergency, may access to the eHR of a patient be allowed without his/her prior consent.
    5. A patient may withdraw from eHR sharing and revoke his/her consent at any time. In such circumstances, the data will be "frozen" from access and archived for a specified period (see Retention of eHR data below).
  3. Access to and Use of eHR Data: Only those health data falling within the pre-defined scope for eHR sharing will be accessible by other healthcare providers under the eHR Sharing System for the primary purpose of enhancing the continuity of care for patients. As a specific exemption to be prescribed under the future eHR legislation, it is proposed that eHR data may be used for public health research and disease surveillance as a secondary purpose, subject to different levels of approval by the relevant authorities depending on whether patient-identifiable eHR data is used.
  4. Retention of eHR Data: As a general rule, eHR data of patients shall be kept within the eHR Sharing System for as long as they continue to participate in eHR sharing. For patients whose consent has lapsed or has been revoked, their data on the eHR Sharing System shall be "frozen" for three years, during which only the subject patient or eligible persons may access the relevant data; and for patients who have passed away, ten years, during which only the administrator / executor or persons authorised by the Court may access the relevant data. Immediately after the "frozen period", the eHR data shall be de-identified and retained in the system for potential secondary usage only.
  5. Data Access and Correction by Patients:
  6. Identification, Authentication, Access Control and Security:
  7. Criminal Sanctions
More here:
There is a fully detailed web site explaining the consultation to be found here
There is an Executive Summary (.pdf) of 19 pages which makes the plans pretty clear.
The access and ID controls are to be based on the National ID smartcard system which is already operational.
Reading the documents this is a ‘patient-orientated’ record system which is voluntary to join but is not patient controlled in the sense meant in Australia.
It is worth having a look at the documents as they clearly have given the whole thing a very considerable amount of thought and are moving in a measured and careful pace.
David.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Truth Is Now Out - More Than 97% Of The Population Will Not Get Anything From The PCEHR By July 2012.

The following appeared today - Australia Day no less!.

Long road ahead for e-health records

  • by: Karen Dearne
  • From: Australian IT
  • January 26, 2012 7:37AM
The Health department spent $142 million on e-health activities in the last financial year around one-third of a total $424m spent on health IT projects over the past 10 years.
Spending more than doubled during 2010-11, up from $60m a year earlier, reflecting a ramping up of work on the Gillard government’s $500m personally controlled e-health record program to meet its July 1 launch.
But documents released today show that while individuals may be able to register for a PCEHR from that date, national usage of the system is not planned in the foreseeable future.
“The first release of the PCEHR system (will) deliver the core functionality required to establish a PCEHR system that can grow over time,” the Health department says.
“Once the design of the national system has been completed, an assessment of the 12 e-health (lead implementation) sites will be undertaken and a transition plan developed for integration to the national PCEHR system.
“This will allow early adoption for individuals participating in the (lead) sites from July 2012, including the capability to target about 500,000 people enrolled in those sites.”
Work on interfacing with GP desktop systems has stopped at most trial sites after the National e-Health Transition Authority discovered software vendors had been given specifications that are incompatible with those used for the national infrastructure build; NEHTA is yet to provide further information about the problems
According to the department, 23 new technical specifications were required to support the PCEHR system, with only four complete and fully tested.
“The remainder will be completed and tested by the end of December 2011,” it says in documents published yesterday.
Lots more details here:
All this does is confirm what most observers have known for ages!
All the answers to many, many questions are here:
Here is the response from DoHA to a Senate Estimates Question to confirm (with a few slippery words) the OZ headline.
Senate Community Affairs Committee
ANSWERS TO ESTIMATES QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
HEALTH AND AGEING PORTFOLIO
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2011-2012, 19 October 2011
Question: E11-490
OUTCOME 10: Health System Capacity and Quality
Topic: EHEALTH – PERSONALLY CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
MILESTONES
Written Question on Notice
Senator Boyce asked:
What will have been achieved by 30 June 2012 with regards to eHealth and the PCEHR in Australia?
Answer:
The first release of the personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) system delivers the core functionality required to establish a PCEHR system that can grow over time. The first release will ensure that all individuals seeking care in the Australian healthcare system will have the option to register for a PCEHR from July 2012.
Once the design of the national system has been completed, an assessment of the 12 eHealth sites will be undertaken and a transition plan developed for integration to the national PCEHR system. This will allow early adoption of the PCEHR system for individuals participating in the eHealth sites from July 2012, including the capability to target approximately 500,000 individuals enrolled in those sites.
The Department has also engaged a National Change and Adoption Partner (NCAP) to develop a national change and adoption strategy and delivery plan; to undertake a range of engagement and communications activities across the health sector to encourage uptake of the system by health professionals and consumers. The NCAP is working in collaboration with health care professionals, software vendors, National E-Health Transition Authority and the Department to successfully deliver the PCEHR Program, including training materials and guidelines.
----- End Answer.
The population of Australia is 22, 813,571 at present according to the ABS. So only about 2.2% will, if they are lucky see anything other than a registration screen by July, 2012.
The second part of this report quoted above is found in this answer:
Senate Community Affairs Committee
ANSWERS TO ESTIMATES QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
HEALTH AND AGEING PORTFOLIO
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2011-2012, 19 October 2011
Question: E11-474
OUTCOME 10: Health System Capacity and Quality
Topic: EHEALTH – AMA AND LACK OF SUPPORT
Written Questions on Notice
Senator Boyce asked:
a) The AMA has made it very clear they cannot support the proposed system as it does not, in their view, improve on what we have now and that, as presently designed, could create serious risks to patient health. Surely this must be of great concern to NEHTA when a body such as the AMA believes this to be the case, so how does NEHTA respond to such concerns?
b) How can NEHTA possible answers such concerns when so many of the key technical standards of the PCEHR have not been completed or adequately tested?
Answer:
a) The Department of Health and Ageing and the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) have ongoing consultation with Australian Medical Association to ensure that the feedback of their members is taken into account in the development of the personally controlled electronic health records (PCEHR) system.
b) To support the PCEHR system 23 technical standards are required. Four are complete and have been fully tested, the remainder will be completed and tested by the end of December 2011. Review processes for the standards include ‘tiger teams’ which bring together clinicians, software developers, standards representatives and informaticians to review and improve the specifications.
Each stage of the development process for the PCEHR technical specifications require clinical governance and safety processes to be followed. NEHTA’s Clinical Safety Unit (CSU) is fully embedded into all areas of NEHTA's product development and oversees clinical governance at NEHTA. The CSU is supplemented through NEHTA’s Clinical Leads.
The CSU addresses safety by working across the work programs in NEHTA to provide certainty to medical software developers, end-users and policy makers. It is a legitimate expectation of Vendors that products developed by NEHTA are safe and have Clinical Utility.
Any clinical safety findings as a result of reviews of specifications and standards are included in the overall review outcomes and mitigations are recommended for inclusion as part of any proposed drafting changes in the specifications, or in the form of implementation guidance to mitigate the risks.
----- End Answer.
Every one now knows this is just untrue. The Tiger Teams have by no means finished the work and testing has meant that many Wave sites have been discovered to be in need of a pause for a month or two while someone works out what Standards and made up Specifications are to be used.
By their own words the entire thing is just a total shambles that will deliver less than 3% at best of what was trumpeted only 18 months ago.
See the Australian article for an amazing breakdown of what has been spent on e-Health, since 2011, by the Commonwealth.
In passing has anyone else heard of job losses in the much touted but very quiet Clinical Safety Unit recently?
David.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

More Evidence Regarding The Usage of Health Portals. They Need More Work and They Need To Be Really Useful.

The following report alerted me to an interesting paper.

Online portal adoption lower than expected in study of older patients

By danb
Created Jan 20 2012 - 12:17pm
Researchers have called the effectiveness of web-based interventions in healthcare into question on the heels of a study showing limited use of such features by patients, according to a study [1] published this month in the Journal of Health Communication.
The study consisted of 130 women considered to be at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). The women, mostly between 50 and 59 years old, were given access to a web portal with information pertaining to screening for the disease, including associated benefits and risks. The site also contained hot links to websites with additional CRC information such as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Journal of the American Medical Association's Patient Page, among others.
Of the women who participated in the study, 83 percent indicated that they spent, on average, one hour per day on the Internet.
While the study's authors expected use of the portal to be high, only 32 patients (24.6 percent) actually logged onto the site, with a majority of those (26) only logging on once.
More here:
Here is the abstract to the full (free) paper.

Build It, and Will They Come? Unexpected Findings From a Study on a Web-Based Intervention to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening

Free access
DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2011.571338
Available online: 04 Jan 2012

Abstract

Given the extensive use of the Internet for health information, Web-based health promotion interventions are widely perceived as an effective communication channel. The authors conducted this study to determine use of a Web-based intervention intended to improve colorectal cancer screening in a population of women who are at average risk and noncompliant to current screening recommendations. The study was a randomized controlled trial designed to compare the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening educational materials delivered using the Internet versus a printed format. In 3 years, 391 women seen for routine obstetrics/gynecology follow-up at 2 academic centers provided relevant survey information. Of these, 130 were randomized to the Web intervention. Participants received voluntary access to a password-protected, study-specific Web site that provided information about colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer screening options. The main outcome measures were self-reported and actual Web site use. Only 24.6% of women logged onto the Web site. Age was the only variable that differentiated users from nonusers (p = .03). In contrast, 16% of participants self-reported Web use. There was significant discordance between the veracity of actual and self-reported use (p = .004). Among true users, most (81%) logged on once only. These findings raise questions about how to increase use of important health communication interventions.
Full paper here:
Again we have a study where motivation and actual preparedness to engage need to be really fostered - and if they are not the outcomes described above are seen.
The old ‘build it and they will come’ does not seem to apply to the web and health advice and information, without some defined additional need for information.
Of course, given that a near to 'content-free' portal is likely to be all the PCEHR actually delivers by June 30, 2012 this paper takes on considerably more relevance. That older citizens do not engage all that well is also a pretty big issue
David.
p.s. Happy Australia Day!

D.

NEHTA Is Offensively Silent On Just What The Problems Are With The PCEHR. I Wonder Just Why That Is?

A couple of quotes from yesterday.

NEHTA presses pause on e-health records

The implementation was stopped after internal checks detected issues in the specifications
..... (most of article deleted)
When contacted by Computerworld Australia, NEHTA declined to comment on the reasons for the delay in funding or whether the delay would cause any setbacks to the project going live by 1 July.
DoHA had not replied at the time of writing.
and here:

Specification issue halts health software

ZDNet Australia made a number of queries about how the issue with the specifications had been created, and what the situation means in real terms for developers; however, NEHTA declined to comment further.
So just why are the technical sites not told just what is actually wrong?
You can read the official NEHTA statement (obfuscatory though it is) here:
Here is what is said:

NEHTA pauses implementation in pilot sites

24 January 2012. National E-Health Transition Authority CEO, Mr Peter Fleming has announced that following a detailed internal review and analysis, NEHTA is temporarily pausing implementation of Primary Care desktop software development around its specifications for the eHealth pilot sites.
"Our specifications are subject to rigorous assessment processes and this has highlighted some technical incompatibilities across versions. We have identified problems with the specifications and have made the decision in order to avoid any risks," Mr Fleming said.
The pilot sites were established to test and deploy software and eHealth capability in real world healthcare settings prior to the introduction of the personally controlled electronic health record system. While the pilot site and national infrastructure projects have operated in parallel, neither is a critical dependency for the other project.
This pause will impact work currently being undertaken by The Primary Care eHealth Network Sites (Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local, Inner East Melbourne Medicare Local, Hunter Urban Medicare Local and Accoras (Brisbane South). Greater Western Sydney, St Vincent's, Calvary, Cradle Coast, NT and Mater will be impacted on the primary care elements of their projects. This issue should not impact delivery by Medibank, FredIT and JEHDI.
NEHTA is acting after internal checks detected issues in the latest release of its specifications in November 2011.
"This is about quality control to ensure absolute confidence in the software being used in the eHealth pilot sites. One of the reasons for having these sites was to test software and 'iron out the bugs' prior to the national infrastructure go live," Mr Fleming said.
The changes required to be made to specifications will be completed over coming weeks and are expected to be finalised mid to late March. As the scope of changes is being determined NEHTA is working closely with the sites to verify all activities and target completion dates.
"In large projects of this scale it is not unusual for problems of this type to arise. We are working to manage this situation to ensure the programme is delivered."
"We remain committed to these sites and to progressing the national eHealth programme," Mr Fleming said.
ENDS
So just where are the technical details of what is wrong, how long it has been present, what is needed to fix it, and so on.
This is a public organisation that is basically saying ‘up-yours’ to the Clinical Health IT Community and the public in general.
Is their CEO just too high and mighty to respond to a concerned and interested media?
Along with their paid spruikers we hear nothing but spin from this frankly awful and non-transparent organisation.
Just dreadful!
David.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

More On The Possible Risks Associated With EHRs. The US AMA Releases a Report!

The following appeared a week or so back on one of our favourite topics.

EHRs Linked to Errors, Harm, AMA Says

Clinicians can introduce errors when they copy and paste sensitive patient data into electronic health records, according to AMA research.
By Ken Terry,  InformationWeek
January 13, 2012
A new AMA report on patient safety in ambulatory care finds that safety problems are widespread but that little is known about which problems cause the most harm. Among the uncertainties cited by the AMA researchers is the contribution of electronic health records (EHRs) to patient safety.
"The use of electronic health records has the potential to improve patient safety and early research shows some promise, but these systems have also been linked to errors and harm," the report says. "It is not yet clear how many providers will adopt these systems, nor the extent to which health IT will improve patient safety in ambulatory care versus generating new types of errors."
The report cites studies indicating that EHRs encourage providers to "copy and paste" clinical data and that they support "automatic behavior" rather than careful reasoning and analysis. Poorly designed systems with hard-to-use interfaces, data entry errors, and software configuration issues can also endanger patients, the report noted.
David Classen, MD, a consultant to the AMA on the report, told InformationWeek Healthcare that the researchers took no position on EHRs, pro or con.
"That study was looking at the evidence from a scientific point of view and finding there is still very limited evidence that EHRs improve the safety of care in the average doctor's office," noted Classen, who is also a CSC consultant and an associate professor of medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Most safety studies, Classen pointed out, have been conducted in large healthcare systems and academic medical centers. That's true, for example, of studies showing the positive effects of electronic prescribing and test ordering in ambulatory care settings. "So we really don't know what's going on in the regular physician's office."
More is found here:
This is the link to the AMA report:
The additional information panel contains a link to the full report:

Top six errors in outpatient care

A decade of research shows that these errors are the most widely documented in ambulatory care, leading to hospitalizations, complications, minor physical harm, psychological harm, lost patient pay, physical injury and death.
  • Medication errors such as prescriptions for incorrect drugs or incorrect dosages.
  • Diagnostic errors such as missed, delayed and wrong diagnoses.
  • Laboratory errors such as missed, delayed and wrong diagnoses.
  • Clinical knowledge errors such as knowledge, skill and general performance errors on the part of physicians and other clinicians.
  • Communication errors such as doctor-patient communication errors, doctor-doctor communication errors or other miscommunications between parties.
  • Administrative errors such as errors in scheduling appointments and managing patient records.
Source: "Research in Ambulatory Patient Safety 2000-2010: A 10-year review," American Medical Association, December 2011 (www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/ethics/research-ambulatory-patient-safety.pdf)
With this we also had a contribution on how to use EHR’s more safely.

CCHIT chair: Tips to use EHRs to improve safety

By mdhirsch
Created Jan 18 2012 - 9:37pm
How well can your EHR system protect patients from substandard patient care? Evidently quite a bit, according to Karen Bell, chair of the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT).
Bell, citing a recent report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) calling for better patient safety in HIT, notes that providers should consider patient safety when evaluating and using EHR systems. While there is no one assessment tool that providers can use to test EHRs regarding safe care, providers can take practical steps to see if their EHRs include the most up-to-date functions and features to improve patient safety--and to check whether the providers are using them.
Bell's checklist is an excellent resource for providers shopping for and implementing EHR systems.
......
To learn more:
- here's Bell's
full list [1] of suggestions
- read the IOM
report [2] (.pdf)
More here:
and almost in the same breath we have this.

EHRs lacking in adverse drug event detection

By mdhirsch
Created Jan 18 2012 - 9:32pm
Many studies confirm that electronic health records enhance patient care, reduce costs or provide some other benefit. But sometimes a study reveals that EHRs--and, fact, the studies testing the EHR systems--have design flaws.
That's the conclusion of a recent study of EHR adverse drug event (ADE) detection systems published by the Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. ADEs, adverse patient outcomes caused by medications, are common and difficult to detect, and occur in 6.5 percent of hospitalized patients, which makes them a major threat to patient safety.
The researchers theorized that electronic alerts to detect ADEs showed promise, since they would be faster, cheaper, objective and more accurate than other detection methods, such as manual chart review. The study analyzed prior studies of electronic systems that automatically screened for ADEs from hospital pharmacy, laboratory, radiology and administrative departments.
The results were not positive. Electronic detections were only 50 percent accurate, and for some EHRs "quite low," according to the researchers.
......
To learn more:
- read the study's
abstract
More here:
Here is the direct link to the abstract:
The abstract conclusion is pretty worrying:
“Conclusion
Several factors led to inaccurate ADE detection algorithms, including immature underlying information systems, non-standard event definitions, and variable methods for detection rule validation. Few ADE detection algorithms considered clinical priorities. To enhance the utility of electronic detection systems, there is a need to systematically address these factors.”
All in all these studies and articles continue to re-enforce the view that just implementing technology is not of itself a ‘good thing’. Much more careful thought, design and evaluation of all interventions is required before mega adoption.
PCEHR Program are you listening? On the basis of what we have seen today I suspect not!
David.

And It Seems It Just Gets Worse and Worse With the PCEHR. Not It Is Not Properly Safe!

The following appeared  a few hours ago.
2012-January-24 | 08:04 By: Dr Eric Browne
Australia is poised to produce a system of Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (PCEHRs) from July 2012, some 6 months from now. According to the recently published Concept of Operations, each person’s PCEHR will comprise a set of electronic documents, the majority of which are to be based on HL7′s Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), in the form of “health summaries”, discharge summaries, referrals, and the like. Having studied both the HL7 specifications in detail as well as dozens, if not hundreds of examples of CDA documents from around the world over the past 5 years, I have come to the conclusion that there are significant safety and quality risks associated with relying on the structured clinical data in many of these electronic documents.
So concerned am I by this issue that I am notifying key stakeholders and urging all individuals and organisations who take safety and quality of clinical data seriously, to investigate this issue thoroughly before committing to any further involvement with the PCEHR system being rushed through by the federal Department of Health and Ageing.
One major problem with HL7 CDA, as currently specified for the PCEHR, is that data can be supplied simultaneously in two distinct, yet disconnected forms – one which is “human-readable”, narrative text displayable to a patient or clinician in a browser  panel;  the other comprising highly structured  and coded clinical “entries” destined for later computer processing. The latter is supposed to underpin clinical decision support, data aggregation, etc. which form much of the justification for the introduction of the PCEHR system in the first place. The narrative text may appear structured on the screen, though is not designed for machine processing beyond mere display for human consumption.
Each clinician is expected to attest the validity of any document prior to sharing it with other healthcare providers, consumers or systems, and she can do so by viewing the HTML rendition of the “human-readable” part of the document ( see the example discharge summary at http://www.healthbase.info/cda_challenge/sample/sample.html ). However, the critical part of the document containing the structured, computer-processable data upon which decision support  is to be based is totally opaque to clinicians, and cannot be readily viewed or checked in any meaningful way. Moreover, I know of no software anywhere in the world that can compare the two distinct parts of these electronic documents to reassure the clinician that what is being sent in the highly structured and coded part matches the simple, narrative part of the document to which they attest. This is due almost entirely to the excessive complexity and design of the current HL7 CDA standard.
It seems to me that we are in grave danger of setting in train a collection of safety and quality time bombs, spread around Australia in a system of repositories, with no understanding of the clinical safety, quality and medico-legal issues that might be unleashed in the future.
As an illustration of the sort of problems  we might see arising, I proffer the following. I looked at 6 sample discharge summary CDA documents  provided by the National E-health Transition Authority recently. Each discharge summary looked fine when the human-readable part was displayed in a browser, yet unbeknownst to any clinician that might do the same, buried in the computer-processable part, I found that each patient was dead at the time of discharge. One patient had been flagged as having died on the day they had been born – 25 years prior to the date that they were purportedly discharged from hospital! Fortunately this was just test, not “live” data.
A second example is the sample electronic prescription document that has been provided with the package of NEHTA specifications currently being “fast-tracked” through Standards Australia to become standards for electronic transfer of prescriptions in Australia. Again, this Level 3 HL7 CDA document contains separate “human-readable” and coded, structured sections,  with no connection between the two. The former looks somewhat like a computer-generated printed prescription ( as shown at http://www.healthbase.info/scratch/ePR_rendered.html ). The computer processable, coded entries in this sample both contradict and also contain additional information to the human-viewable part, yet these coded entries are opaque to clinicians. Again, this was just example data, but the principle remains the same. Clinicians cannot see what is in the coded parts of the document.
I contend that it is nigh on impossible with the current HL7 CDA design, to build sufficient checks into the e-health system to ensure these sorts of errors won’t occur with real data, or to detect mismatch errors between the two parts of the documents once they have been sent to other providers or lodged in PCEHR repositories.
This situation must also be of potential concern to patients considering opting in to the PCEHR system. Consumers have been led to believe that they will be able to control what data is sent to the PCEHR and who can see it. But if neither they, nor their healthcare provider can view all the data to be sent and stored in the new system, then how can they possibly have confidence that they will be “in control” of their data?
Surely this must ring alarm bells to all involved!
To allay the concerns raised here, NEHTA should provide an application, or an algorithm,  that allows users to decode and view all the hidden, coded clinical contents of any of the PCEHR electronic document types, so that those contents can be compared with the human-readable part of the document.
The post is found here and is reposted with permission:
I really don’t need to say anything. Dr Eric Browne has said it all!
David.

As I Warned Yesterday The Wheels Have Just Come Off! NEHTA Has Proven Itself To Be Incompetent!

This appeared this morning.

E-health key trial halted by specifications glitch

MOST of the trial sites for the federal government's electronic health record project have been taken offline after it was discovered they were working to different specifications than the planned national model.
The National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) halted the rollout of primary care desktop software at 10 trial sites on Friday blaming incompatibility with the national specifications.
It is the latest blow for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) project, which has attracted $466 million in federal funding over two years and is considered vital to efforts to combat preventable and chronic disease.
The national specifications were updated in November and the problems, which have not been detailed, affect most of the Wave 1 and Wave 2 sites: Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local, Inner East Melbourne Medicare Local, Hunter Urban Medicare Local, Accoras in Brisbane South, Greater Western Sydney, St Vincent and Mater Health Sydney, Calvary Health Care ACT, Cradle Coast Electronic Health Information Exchange in Tasmania, the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, and Brisbane's Mater Misericordiae Health Services.
Only the Medibank Private and Fred IT group sites are unaffected. The Defence Department's Joint e-Health Data and Information also appears to be safe.
NEHTA is expected to renegotiate contracts, keen to salvage what it can from the trial, and determine how to migrate data across to the national system which is due to go live on July 1.
A NEHTA spokesman would not answer specific questions about the issue, but confirmed it was "pausing implementation of the primary care desktop software development".
"NEHTA is acting after internal checks detected issues in the latest release of its specifications in November 2011," he said.
"This is about quality control to ensure absolute confidence in the software being used in the e-Health pilot sites. One of the reasons for having these sites was to test software and "iron out the bugs' prior to the national infrastructure going live."
More here:
What is going on here is utterly predictable when you have a whole series of pilots based on different technologies being conducted in isolation and then expected somehow to magically form a coherent national system.
With all those well paid architects NEHTA should have known this - I have been saying it for years - and really it is an example of utter planning failure.
NEHTA has just managed to prove itself to be utterly incompetent and is becoming the instigator of yet another failing over-reaching national e-Health Program.
The wise men who said you should learn to walk before running where spot on!
As for delivering a system that actually does anything useful by June 30 - dream on!
David.