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."

Friday, October 07, 2011

Wrap Up On the Cancellation of the UK NPfIT. A Set of Links To A Range of Perspectives.

First we have:

U.K. Ends Health-Service IT Upgrade

By JEANNE WHALEN

The U.K. said it was scrapping a £11 billion ($17 billion) information-technology program for its state-run health service, saying that some of the £6.4 billion already spent has been wasted and that the program today "is not fit to provide the modern IT services" the health-care system needs.
Launched in 2002 under the previous Labour government, the program was hailed as one of the biggest IT projects ever attempted. It aimed to digitize patient records and link all parts of the sprawling National Health Service, or NHS, and was closely watched by other countries attempting to adopt new healthcare IT. BT Group PLC and Computer Sciences Corp. are among the suppliers involved.
The scrapping of the ambitious U.K. program could have implications for the digital health-care push under way in other countries, including the U.S., which has suffered its own setbacks as it attempts to digitize medical records. Supporters of modern health-care IT say it can cut costs and improve patient care, but the software is often expensive, complex to design and cumbersome for physicians to use.
In a statement Thursday, Britain's Department of Health said it was "dismantling" the project because it "has not and cannot deliver to its original intent." It said future IT decisions would be made on a regional level, with more suppliers competing for contracts.
The health department said it based its decision in part on a recent report from a parliamentary committee that scrutinizes government spending, which concluded that the government had overpaid for parts of the IT system and faced "extensive delays" from suppliers.
.....
In the U.S., the government has tried to incentivize managed-care organizations to adopt better health-care IT as a means to improve patient care and reduce health-care spending, which the government helps fund through its Medicare and Medicaid programs. But progress has been mixed, said Kenneth Kizer, head of the Institute for Population Health Improvement at the University of California, Davis.
Managed-care groups sometimes design IT systems without enough input from doctors and nurses, who then rebel when the product is forced upon them, he said.
Managed-care giant Kaiser Permanente took a $442 million write-off in 2002 after scrapping a multibillion dollar attempt to create its own electronic medical-record system and has spent billions more on a new one. A Kaiser spokesman said the first system "was out of date and could not provide a common platform organization-wide that could operate at such great scale."
Full article here:
Then we have:

Dismantling NHS computer scheme could cost more money

Dismantling Labour’s disastrous £12billion NHS IT programme may cost taxpayers more than keeping it going.

6:00PM BST 22 Sep 2011
Ministers announced on Thursday that they will speed up the scrapping of the National Programme for IT after a review concluded “there can be no confidence that the programme has delivered or can be delivered as originally conceived”.
It confirmed earlier reports that the central part of the scheme, allowing NHS staff across England to access any patient’s details, was unworkable while costs had increases and deadlines were missed.
The governance board of the programme will now be scrapped, and local trusts will be given the freedom to develop their own versions of the electronic care record rather than having the rules dictated by Whitehall. A new Cabinet Office oversight committee will monitor future IT investment to ensure money is not wasted.
But many trusts across England have large contracts with private suppliers to supply their care record systems, and their cancellation could leave taxpayers even more out of pocket.
The Department of Health’s own chief information officer, Christine Connelly, told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee in May that a £3bn deal with CSC to deliver systems in the north, midlands and east of England would cost more to get out of than to keep going.
She said: “Potentially, if you ask me about the absolute maximum, we could be exposed to a higher cost than the cost to complete the contract as it stands today.”
More here:
We also have a good deal of coverage from E-Health Insider (www.ehi.co.uk)
First here:

Government axes "Labour" NPfIT

22 September 2011   Lyn Whitfield
The government has used the end of the Cabinet Office’s review of the National Programme for IT in the NHS to announce that it is going to “axe” the project.
The timing of the move appears to be linked to the party conference season. The Labour Party is meeting next week, and this morning a number of Conservative-supporting papers put significant emphasis on the programme's Labour roots.
The Daily Mail opens its coverage by saying that “ministers are to axe Labour’s disastrous £12 billion NHS computer scheme” which it goes on to describe as a “monument to Whitehall folly during Labour’s 13 years in power.”
The paper does not say what will happen to NHS Connecting for Health, the agency that runs the programme, or to CSC’s local service provider contract for the North, Midlands and East of England, on which considerable sums of money are still to be spent.
However, eHealth Insider understands that in line with previous announcements, the future of CfH will be clarified in a report on the future of health informatics that is due later this autumn.
EHI also understands that the DH continues to lead on negotiations with CSC, although there will be further involvement from the Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude will chair an 'oversight committee' to get best value from the contracts, with DH and Cabinet Office representation.
The DH and the US company have been locked in negotiations about a new deal since CSC missed another key deadline to install iSoft’s Lorenzo software at Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust.
The deal has been interrupted by a highly critical National Audit Office report on the detailed care records elements of the national programme.
This also criticised the deals re-signed with BT for London and parts of the South, which delivered less functionality to fewer trusts for only a small amount less money.
The CSC negotiations were also interrupted by a lively meeting of the Commons’ public accounts committee on the report, and a review of the whole national programme by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority.
The Mail and other papers report that, in line with changes already announced last year by health minister Simon Burns, the programme will be replaced with regional initiatives and trusts being given more control over their own IT.
In a formal press release, issued onto its website at 9.30am this morning, the DH indicates that the Major Projects Authority came to many of the same conclusions as its own review, which led to Burns' statement last summer.
It says: "The MPA found that there have been substantial achievements which are now firmly established, such as the Spine, N3 Network, NHSmail, Choose and Book, Secondary Uses Service and Picture Archving and Communications Service.
And here:

DH and Intellect to stimulate market

22 September 2011   Lyn Whitfield
The Department of Health is to work with Intellect to stimulate the market for NHS IT, following this morning’s announcement that the national programme is to be “dismantled.”
A press release issued by the DH this morning says that a new partnership will “explore ways to stimulate a market place that will no longer exclude small and medium sized companies from participating in significant government healthcare IT projects.”
In response, Intellect issued a statement saying that it wanted the DH to focus on helping the market to deliver interoperable systems and to develop a "central focus on clinical information sharing in the NHS Information Strategy."
To support these moves, Intellect has published a paper - 'We should talk - interoperability and the NHS' - setting out a number of recommendations for helping the NHS to share clinical information more effectively.
The paper's principal authors, Paul Cooper and Martin Whittaker, said that  NHS Connecting for Health, suppliers and trusts should work together to improve the Interoperability Toolkit programme; which has just reached its second iteration.
They argued that for the benefits of ITK to be realised, the NHS will need to make it a central plank of its promised information and technology strategies.
They said it would also need to "evangelise" the benefits to business and clinical leaders, and to engage with suppliers so it becomes an "encouragement to succeed, not a barrier to entry." 
Lots more here:
There is also an editorial on the forward direction:

EHI Editorial

That the National Programme for IT in the NHS is to be dismantled makes a strong newspaper headline; but it leaves a host of problems for those who care about NHS IT and its role in the wider healthcare reforms. First off, much of this week's announcement is re-heated and so not as new as it looks.
Time was called on the programme last autumn, and on the surface very little appears to have changed since then. There's still a big mess with CSC in the North Midlands and East and no information strategy anywhere. However, in the corridors of Whitehall a revolution has been underway. The Cabinet Office has taken a firm grip on the CSC negotiations.
The National Programme Board is to be replaced by direct ministerial control. The Department of Health is to work with Intellect to 'revitalise' the market. If it is remotely serious, it should vigorously dismantle the monopolies created by NPfIT and take steps on certification and interoperability that would begin to reduce the barriers to market entry.
More than anything, though, the NHS needs to have some clear guidance on the future direction of its IT and what, if anything, is going to come from the remaining contracts. NPfIT may be over, again, but we will all have to live with its legacy and pay the bills for years to come.
Here is the Official Department of Health Medial Release:

Dismantling the NHS National Programme for IT

September 22, 2011
The government today announced an acceleration of the dismantling of the National Programme for IT, following the conclusions of a new review by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority (MPA). The programme was created in 2002 under the last government and the MPA has concluded that it is not fit to provide the modern IT services that the NHS needs.
In May 2011 the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that the MPA would be reviewing the NHS National Programme for IT. 
 The MPA found that there have been substantial achievements which are now firmly established, such as the Spine, N3 Network, NHSmail, Choose and Book, Secondary Uses Service and Picture Archiving and Communications Service.  Their delivery accounts for around two thirds of the £6.4bn money spent so far and they will continue to provide vital support to the NHS. However, the review reported the National Programme for IT has not and cannot deliver to its original intent.
In a modernised NHS, which puts patients and clinicians in the driving seat for achieving health outcomes amongst the best in the world, it is no longer appropriate for a centralised authority to make decisions on behalf of local organisations.  We will continue to work with our existing suppliers to determine the best way to deliver the services upon which the NHS depends in a way which allows the local NHS to exercise choice while delivering best value for money.
A new partnership with Intellect, the Technology Trade Association, will explore ways to stimulate a marketplace that will no longer exclude small and medium sized companies from participating in significant government healthcare projects.
The Department of Health said:
“The exchange of information between patients and clinicians and across the NHS is a fundamental part of how we are centring care on patients and making sure innovation and choice are fully supported.  The NPfIT achieved much in terms of infrastructure and this will be maintained, along with national applications, such as the Summary Care Record and Electronic Prescriptions Service, which are crucial to improving patient safety and efficiency.  But we need to move on from a top down approach and instead provide information systems driven by local decision-making.  This is the only way to make sure we get value for money and that the modern NHS meets the needs of patients.”
Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, said:
“This Government will not allow costly failure of major projects to continue. That’s why we have set up the Major Projects Authority – to work in collaboration with central Government Departments to help us get firmer control of our major projects, and ensure there is a more systematic approach by departments as well as regular, planned scrutiny to keep projects on track.”
“The National Programme for IT embodies the type of unpopular top-down programme that has been imposed on front-line NHS staff in the past. Following the Major Projects Authority review, we now need to move faster to push power to the NHS frontline and get the best value for taxpayers’ money.”
Other comments are also included in the release:
It is interesting that there also seems to be some major aspects still going ahead:

Cabinet Office review pleads stay of execution for NHS IT

The Major Projects Authority has urged the Department of Health to persist, at least for a while, with two key features of the National Programme for IT
A team from the Cabinet Office has recommended that the Department of Health (DH) gives more time to two elements of England's NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) dealing with the provision of key information systems.
The Major Projects Authority (MPA), set up last year to scrutinise expensive projects throughout central government, has said the Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) should be retained for the south of England, and that CSC should be given more time to deliver the Lorenzo system from iSoft in the North, Midlands and East area for which it is local service provider.
The recommendations are within the MPA's assessment review of NPfIT, which has been made available on the Cabinet Office website.
One of three recommendations, that the programme should be dismembered and reconstituted under different management because of so many negative perceptions, was effectively accepted by the DH last week. But the other two recommend that elements of NPfIT's plans to provide electronic patient record systems – the most problematic part of its work – should be continued, although with reservations in regard to CSC and iSoft's work introducing Lorenzo software.
The second recommendation is that ASCC, which was set up to give healthcare trusts a more flexible procurement model, should be approved for use in the southern cluster despite the Cabinet Office recently refusing to do so. The review says the solutions available through the framework are tried and tested, and that preventing its use will slow down progress in the region.
More here:
Lastly from the UK we have:

NHS software provider CSC may get cash lifeline

• Cabinet Office proposes financial aid for IT contractor
• CSC's Lorenzo system 'not proved fit for purpose', says report
Ministers are considering offering one of the NHS's worst-performing IT contractors financial help to keep the company from ditching a troublesome software package which is "not fit for purpose", according to Cabinet Office documents.
The plan to offer the US group Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) one last chance to fix the software risks a furious backlash over "payments for failure", in the latest twist to a fiasco that has generated years of delays at considerable cost to the health service.
The move comes despite the Department of Health last week declaring that the £11.4bn National Programme for IT, started in 2002 under Labour, was to be scrapped because it was "not fit to provide the modern IT services that the NHS needs".
However, the department has not severed existing contracts. Most controversially, it remains in a long-running feud with CSC over a £3bn agreement to install IT systems in the Midlands, north and east of England.
More here:
From the US here is the last comment I have spotted:
September 27, 2011, 7:40 am

Lessons From Britain’s Health Information Technology Fiasco

By STEVE LOHR
Government press releases tend to be bland, earnest blather. But not one posted on the British Department of Health’s Web site last Thursday. Its headline: “Dismantling the NHS National Programme for IT.”
To translate the acronyms a bit, the NHS is Britain’s state-run National Health Service and the program in question was the ambitious drive to computerize England’s health records and let doctors, clinics and hospitals share patient information electronically. The project, begun in 2002, was budgeted at £12 billion (about $19 billion) and the government hailed it as “the world’s biggest civil information technology program.”
The British digital health project has been a slow-motion train wreck for some time with last week’s announcement mainly confirmation — and a pledge to change course. (The announcement was also a political gesture, as the Conservative government of David Cameron tries to get as much distance as it can from an unpopular initiative, begun by Tony Blair’s Labor government.)
More here:
At the end of the day I believe this initiative will leave a considerable legacy and a vast array of lessons which will need years to really appreciate.
One feels it might just have been a little too big to pull off - and it will be years down the track before we know if the alternative approaches do ultimately deliver!
Time will tell.
David.

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Health Information Exchange Where Are the Roadblocks. The Scene Is As Hard In Australia. We Now Have Some Late Breaking PCEHR Standards News!

The following useful review of the barriers to Health Information Exchange appeared a few days ago.

The Top 5 roadblocks HIEs face

September 28, 2011 | GHIT Staff
Just as young businesses of most any sort must circumvent myriad challenges to succeed, health providers are encountering multiple roadblocks in the implementation of HIEs. At the core of those: financial sustainability. The root of many, perhaps, money is neither the only problem, nor the most trying.
“The most important obstacles facing HIEs depend on the perspective of who is looking at them – the patients, the providers, etc. So as we move forward, we have to make sure to address all these stakeholders,” said Benjamin Stein, MD, president and CEO of HIE Long Island Patient Information eXchange (LIPIX). “There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the problems of HIEs.”
Indeed, many healthcare professionals have raised doubts about HIEs living up to their potential. A survey of healthcare providers, vendors and experts found five issues that constitute the top concerns.
1. Data sharing
The groundwork already in place, with federal incentives for EHRs, HIEs, telemedicine, and related projects available, the goals of HIEs are straightforward: Reduce administrative costs associated with manual data and paper-based systems, reduce costs related to improved information access by decreasing redundant testing, avoidance of unnecessary hospitalizations due to missing information, more efficient visits, improving co-ordination of patient care with timely and accurate information across providers, and more effective medication reconciliation.
That all comes down to actually exchanging health data.
As HIEs now stand, however, much of their operations still occur in narrow sets of silos. Data exchange between EHRs and exchanges through organized state and regional HIEs is decidedly uneven in delivery. Electronic reporting for public and population health measurement is lacking.
2. Patient consent
Patient authorization and consent is often cited as one of the first challenges to HIEs, because authorization is a true test of the ability of EMR systems to work across healthcare and technology platforms as data is exchanged.
At Geisinger Health System, a Danville, Pa.-headquartered provider, Jim Younkin is program director of IT, leading development of the Keystone Health Information Exchange (KeyHIE), a regional HIE.
“Our legal counsel reminds us of the risks, and to make sure we don’t share information with anyone unless we have patient authorization allowing it to be shared,” Younkin said. “So we have increased our efforts in obtaining authorization, but that’s not easy.”
KeyHIE includes 12 hospitals, more than 90 clinics, skilled care, long-term care, and home health organizations. More than 385,000 patients have signed authorizations, allowing their information to be shared for treatment purposes through this exchange. Nonetheless, Yonkin says patient authorization and consent remain a hurdle to further development of HIEs.
“Because we have a large footprint,” Younkin adds, “a lot of doctors see patients who have records from other hospitals, where in some cases the information comes back in faxes. That’s been a difficult issue for us.”
Having started an EMR system in 1996, Geisinger is a seasoned user of technology platforms to facilitate date exchange, and is continuing its search for best practices in patient authorization, Younkin added
Likewise, Patty Dodgen, CEO of Tampa, Fla.-based Hielix, which provides HIE implementation services, sees difficulties in adopting patient authorization on the large scale contemplated by HIEs.
“There is a maze of EHR vendors touting, not an HIE system, but an interface. You have to have functionality that includes a mechanism for verifying and authenticating individuals and a record location service,” Dodgen explained. “You have to build an HIE that includes functionality that can go into a variety of settings and pull information back into the user.”
3. Standards
LIPIX CEO Stein believes HIEs need to bring in as many stakeholders – doctors, providers, patients – as possible from the very beginning, particularly to settle differences of healthcare standards that might prevent integration.
“The complexity of the healthcare IT market creates a challenge in relation to standards. All the vendors have their own standards,” Stein explained. “I think we can overcome that but it’s going to take a focus on development of core standards, some key standards.”
Lots more here:
There is little doubt that after getting a properly functional EHR in place the next step for most health care providers is to be able to gather information regarding the patient in front of them from all the useful information sources that can be accessed. This may be in the form of test result information, specialist and hospital record information or whatever else can be safely and reliably located.
Actually organising a then managing such exchange is no trivial task, but with some effort and co-operation is certainly possible.
The issues of what actual information is shared, how consent is managed, what standards are used, how complexity is kept as low as possible and so on are all vitally important as is the critical issue of how the exchange can be sustained in the longer term (i.e. who pays for what etc.).
With all this activity in the US it is important to recognise that Australia has developed a pretty effective health information exchange infrastructure based on a small charge being paid for the practitioner for connectivity (and some state-wide arrangements).
The figures for adoption and use are actually pretty impressive. As an example Medical Objects now has about 17,000 health practitioners connected with secure clinical messaging.
See here:
There are a range of other providers (e.g. Argus, HealthLink proMedicus etc. with varying capabilities and functionality) and between these providers most GPs have access to such health information exchange if they desire (and most do).
A point to note here is that all this activity and success has been had despite rather than because of NEHTA’s efforts. To date adoption of NEHTA’s offering in the secure messaging area has been very low indeed.
According to the NEHTA Secure Messaging Site this effort has been underway since 2006
To date it is not clear - after 5 years - just how many sites are using it compared with the providers mentioned above but I doubt it would be 1% of those using other systems.
The software compliance list to NEHTA Standards does not seem to have been updated since March 2010 and it is by no means clear what has happened here either. I would love to hear from active users out there to get a handle for all of us as to just where all this is up to!
-----
After this was written - and just in the last day we have these 2 files become available:
and here:
These two documents are the analysis that supported the earlier reported NEHTA standards choices for the PCEHR and the until quite recently unavailable Direckt Report on what the available choices were.
Those cleverer than I can analyse in detail but it does rather look that there are at least some changes of direction in some areas with other areas still going with approaches that are unproven and unimplemented in Australia. This will keep the developers busy!
The big question is, of course, how all these proposals fit with the infrastructure Medical Objects, Argus, HealthLink and others have in place. Replacement of what already is in place is a multi-year and expensive activity at best and total lunacy at worst! Comments on that issue welcome.
David.

It Seems There Might Just Be Another Way To Move Forward With E-Health. KISS!

Now here is an idea that will send shivers down the spine of those obsessed with unimplemented technical perfection within NEHTA.

ONC's Mostashari: 'We can't afford to wait another 5 years before we have exchange'

September 28, 2011 | Mary Mosquera
Dr. Farzad Mostashari, the national health IT coordinator, urged the Health IT Standards Committee to lean forward with standards that are “good enough” to get started on robust health information exchange instead of waiting until they gain maturity and wide adoption.
The lack of transport standards is one of the biggest barriers to providers’ sharing information on a national scale, he said. And it is holding back recognition of the progress made in stage 1 of meaningful use. Currently, exchange occurs mainly through proprietary exchange technology formats and Health Level 7 standards. 
Yet stage 2 meaningful use requirements will call for more complex health information exchange, he said at the Sept. 28 standards committee meeting, which advises the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Providers need a portfolio of standards, tools and services to meet exchange goals.
“My request to you is to push. There is a sense in which not moving on anything is a greater risk than moving forward on something that may be imperfect,” Mostashari said. “We can’t afford to wait another five years before we have exchange in this country.” 
The committee wrestled with how to scale nationally the specifications for the nationwide health information network (NwHIN Exchange) and aspects of how data moves. NwHIN is the set of standards and services that enable typically large organizations and federal agencies to share information securely through the Internet. ONC wants to expand NwHIN Exchange participation.
The NwHIN team explored “if we were to adopt today standards for nationwide use, what seems directionally good enough for that particular purpose and what needs more work,” said Dr. John Halamka, committee co-chair and CIO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The group provided its best observations and evaluation of what is available.
Standards, services and policies for NwHIN Exchange must be deployable within an architectural framework capable enough to support secure information exchange at a national scale. “The building blocks have to fit and operate within an architectural framework,” said Dixie Baker, NwHIN team lead and SAIC senior vice president and chief technology officer for health solutions.
More details are here:
When you have the US National Co-ordinator for Health IT saying we need to actually just get moving rather than obsessing with technical perfection all I can say is Yeah!
We have watched NEHTA now for over 5 years produce more documents than you could climb over - and where is all this work and cost actually making a difference? I am sure those who consult to or a paid by NEHTA are thrilled -but the clinicians and patients who they are meant to be serving - what have they had or really seen as yet.
There really is a crying need for a profound strategic review that focusses on working out just what can be moved into real implementation and have a real impact and how can this actually be achieved.
As they have recognised in the US, enough is enough! Let’s actually get going with practical and useful. And while we are doing that lets re-think the PCEHR and how it will work and be used to make it practical and useful!
David.

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

It Does Not Seem The Concern About What Is Going On Inside Queensland Health Is Going Away.

The following appeared a few days ago:

Queensland Health rejects claim of bias in e-health deal

QUEENSLAND Health has defended its procurement of a $182 million e-medical records (eMR) system for state hospitals amid claims of bias towards the market leader, Cerner.
Opposition health spokesman Mark McArdle has obtained 3120 pages of emails, strategies, plans and minutes generated about the eMR tender between June 2009 and April this year under state Right To Information laws.
Another 942 pages were not released due to being either "cabinet or commercial in confidence".
Mr McArdle claims the documents show senior departmental officers asked research firm Gartner to make changes to its independent report on a market scanning exercise in 2009.
He has asked the Queensland Auditor-General to "conduct a full audit of the health IT program to ensure future patient care is not placed at risk and taxpayers' funds are not wasted".
Mr McArdle is concerned that the process may have unfairly prevented potential competitors from bidding.
More here:
Additionally we had this well researched contribution a day later

Gartner defends Queensland Health report

James Hutchinson

Analyst firm dragged into 'political wrangling'.

Research firm Gartner has stepped in to defend a report at the centre of allegations Queensland Health was biased in choosing a provider for its $182 million state-wide electronic medical record.
Senior departmental staff were alleged to have requested changes from the authors of a 2009 Gartner report to favour e-health provider Cerner over other bidders for the project.
Confidential emails between Queensland Health chief information officer Ray Brown, senior e-health director Tam Shepherd and staff were obtained and published by shadow health minister Mark McArdle under state Right to Information laws last week.
The emails [pdf] revealed that Graham Bretag of the department's e-health contract and vendor management e-health division had asked Gartner to alter a column denoting Cerner as the only company having a "generation three" computer-based patient record (CPR) installation in Australia.
Bretag had also asked for "unambiguous clarification" that rival bidders Lorenzo and i.CM did not having the same level of installation locally.
Gartner's report highlighted a total of five bidders with installations in Australia at differing "generations" of capability.
The authors had agreed to make the changes, according to the emails.
However, Gartner's Asia Pacific head of research Ian Bertram told iTnews the changes were part of the usual fact-checking process undertaken by the research firm during authoring of the report.
The changes did not change the recommendations or conclusions of the report, he said.
"In this case it was just a fact clarification, having a look at the exact same data but just calling out more explicity which CPR gen 3 was installed in Australia," he said.
Gartner had approached all potential bidders for the project, as well as the department, to partake in the process.
"There was a raft of different recommendations that we came to," Bertram said.
"We never, in our engagement, said there was one clear winner. That's not what we were engaged to do, we were engaged to help put together selection criteria to help them go out and find a [winner]."
Bertram said the change was absolutely factual and did not place Cerner in a more favourable light.
As a "generation three" install, Cerner systems were shown to have integrated pharmaceutical functionality and cover both ambulatory and acute care settings.
Gartner's framework used a scale of five generations, with each level delineated by certain minimum requirements.
Queensland Health chief information officer Brown denied any wrongdoing on the behalf of departmental staff.
"Independent probity experts, governance experts and lawyers reviewed the process adopted by Queensland Health, raised no concerns with actions taken, and confirmed the process was appropriate," he said.
The probity report had found procurement processes were consistent and "undertaken with attention to transparency and fair dealing".
Brown said the probity adviser had found there was "no reason to believe Cerner has been treated with undue bias in any of the procurement processes, communications or stages".
iTnews was denied access to the report by Queensland Health.
The department also confirmed that Shephard resigned from his position last week, as initial allegations against the procurement processes were first made.
Shepherd would take on a chief executive role in the primary health sector.
More here:
Now after my original post on the matter (see here):
we have had a voice from north of the Tweed be in touch. A few extra points were made:
First I was told that the last post in the comments of the previous blog was very close to the full truth.
Anonymous said...
This is nothing of a surprise - Cerner have been trying to get into Q'health for at least 5 years. Their ploy was always to use their Radiology contract at PA Hospital as the way in and avoid a public tender. They have a real strong supporter in a well-known doctor at PA who wanted the Cerner solution prior to Trak Health. Truth is it will fail - there is no way Cerner can deliver a solution to Q'Health and replace so many inbedded departmental solutions that are state wide. Whilst this is clearly a 'back-door' deal it will flop. And as a foot note, if any government thinks that spending $180M plus without the need for a market tender is OK - they too will fall. Problem is, will Cerner get ink on the contract before the election ?
Additional points were also made:
1. Initially QH had hoped to purchase Cerner via the NSW Period Contract. This would remove the need for tendering and keep all above board. This plan was apparently referred to internally as Project Mango.
2. About 2 years ago it was realised this would not work and so a selective procurement was planned based on having a consultant provide a market report.
3. This ‘process’ led to Cerner being selected but there was a distinct lack of a requirements statement on which a contract for delivery could be properly framed - such a requirements document having (apparently) never been developed.
4. The situation is now that negotiations for a contract are going on with no real clarity as to what is being actually procured - which is pretty risky and was concerning the voice from the North greatly.
The reader will see the Anon comment and my informant match up quite nicely so it is possible that a. It is true, b. the source is the same person or some other possibility - such as evil intent etc.
Whatever I suspect there will be more to come on this and that the Qld Opposition won’t let it go. We await the next episode!
David.

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

A New And Very Interesting NEHTA Document Has Come To Light. The Number Of Copies That Have Arrived Here is Amazing!

The document is entitled as follows:

Specifications and Standards Plan

PCEHR System

Version 1.1 —30 September 2011
For Discussion
You may download your own personal copy from the link below.
What the document is proposing - in response to the fact that Standards are not ready for many aspects of the PCEHR - is a process involving the formation of Tiger Teams. These teams will produce Draft Standards for Trial Use (DSTU). These will essentially be the NEHTA specifications as previously developed.
The Tiger Teams will be made up as follows:
“It is proposed that the Tiger Teams are co-led by PCEHR participation and an IT-014-XX representative(s). If more than one of the IT-014-XX committees are involved, one would take the co-lead on behalf of the IT-014 community.
Tiger teams must also include suitable representation from the National Infrastructure Partner, Change and Adoption Partner, and the Benefits Evaluation Partner, as well as contribution from the Lead Implementation Sites.”
It is intended, apparently that this work will be finalised before November, 30 2011, so that all the Wave Sites and Accenture can get on with implementation.
In the meantime it is planned that the DSTU is tidied up, formatted and published, later, as an Australian Standard. This does rather seem to be a cart before the horse approach if we are to have a standards based PCEHR.
It will be very interesting to see the response of the IT-14 Committee Members to this approach. I get the sense they are not thrilled with what they are reading. Time will tell I am sure.
As far as I am concerned this is just politically driven nonsense which quite severely distorts Health Informatics Standards creation in OZ. But in these crazy times - so it goes!
David.

Monday, October 03, 2011

Weekly Australian Health IT Links – 3rd October, 2011.

Here are a few I have come across this week.
Note: Each link is followed by a title and a 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.

General Comment

The main news of the week has been the release of the PCEHR draft legislation - as discussed yesterday.
In the background we still have the apparent problems in Qld Health rumbling along with progressive dribbles of information as to what has gone on.
Additionally we have a few odd random pieces of news on telehealth, Medicare Locals and so on. It is interesting that concern about the Medicare Locals program continues to rumble on. I suspect this is another situation where the continued concern is pointing to some basic flaws in the whole Medicare Local program which are not going to be easily solved.
Certainly just how Medicare Locals will contribute to e-Health does not seem to be yet fully defined. I guess this will all become clear over time.
-----

Medical association concerned over PCEHR draft legislation

According to the industry body, the proposal fails to address the issue of availability of critical information for practitioners
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has raised concerns that the federal government’s released draft of legislation for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) still fails to address the availability of critical information for practitioners.
AMA federal vice president, Steve Hambleton, told Computerworld Australia the government’s nominated healthcare providers, which includes medical practitioners, nurses, aboriginal health practitioners and others, remained a concern for the system’s success.
“We’d prefer to start with medical practitioners to get used to the system and get it up and running and then widen it after that if it seems suitable,” Hambleton said.
-----

The PCEHR treasure hunt

Techno Blog | 30 September 2011 | 0 Comments
BY KAREN DEARNE
LONG weekends, school holidays, Christmas—politicians never like to waste an opportunity to quietly announce something potentially controversial when it may be overlooked or when people are otherwise engaged.
This time, it’s Health Minister Nicola Roxon releasing long-anticipated draft legislation to underpin the establishment and operation of the government’s $500 million e-health record system.
She needs to get the new laws rushed into place, because she has set a deadline for the commencement of the program of July 1 next year.
To make it even harder for those inclined to take a look, the material is not on the Health Department’s main website, it’s at www.yourhealth.gov.au
-----

Hefty fines for e-health record misuse as Roxon releases draft legislation

  • by: Karen Dearne
  • From: Australian IT
  • September 30, 2011 10:28AM
HEALTH Minister Nicola Roxon has released long-awaited draft legislation to support the introduction of a nationwide electronic health records system, due to commence operations on July 1, 2012.
The proposed bill features penalties of up to $66,000 for inappropriate access to a record, with penalties being multiplied by the number of records which have been inappropriately accessed.
Ms Roxon said proactive monitoring of the system will take place to detect suspicious behaviour, and ensure records are only accessed when there is a need to do so.
"Using a combination of legislation, security and technology, backed by strict penalties for infringements, we will give patients peace of mind that their sensitive medical information is safe and secure,” she said in a statement.
"For the first time patients will have control over who accesses their information and, further, they will know who has accessed their medical records, and when."
-----

Health department issues PCEHR legislation draft

The document calls for public submissions and outlines the security and privacy framework underpinning the project
The federal government has released draft legislation for its $466.7 million Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (PCEHR) project, following the release of the Concept of Operations document earlier this month.
Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, said the draft (PDF) had been released for public consultation and outlined the process for consumers, healthcare providers and data sources to register for the e-health system.
“For the first time patients will have control over who accesses their information — and further they will know who has accessed their medical records, and the exact time that record was accessed,” Roxon said in a statement.
-----

Draft e-health Bill tough on privacy

By Luke Hopewell, ZDNet.com.au on September 30th, 2011
Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has today aired the exposure draft of the legislation behind the government's personally controlled e-health records (PCEHR) project, while outlining tough penalties for those found in breach of the proposed privacy provisions.
The 74-page draft legislation (PDF) was published today, and specifies how Australians can sign up for, control and restrict their own e-health record. The draft also detailed the role of a national operator — who will run customer and provider access portals, core services and the National Repositories Service in a dual-datacentre environment — and revealed the harsh penalties for those found breaching patient confidentiality on the system.
"Using a combination of legislation, security and technology, backed by strict penalties for infringements, we will give patients peace of mind that their sensitive medical information is safe and secure," Roxon said in a statement today.
-----

Fines levied for e-health data breaches

Patient records available to law enforcement and courts.

The Federal Government will penalise health practitioners to the tune of $66,000 for any personally controlled electronic health record compromised, leaked or “inappropriately accessed” under draft e-health legislation released today.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon said in a statement that she expected the PCEHR system to be “more secure and private” than paper-based records.
The draft legislation [pdf] includes strong penalties of $13,200 per instance of a record being accessed without authorisation or confidential information leaked.
-----
Yearb Med Inform. 2011;6(1):131-8.

The Role of Social Media for Patients and Consumer Health. Contribution of the IMIA Consumer Health Informatics Working Group.

Source

Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Tel: +61(2) 9385 8891; Fax: +61(2) 9385 8692; E-mail: a.lau@unsw.edu.au.
-----

Gartner defends Queensland Health report

Analyst firm dragged into 'political wrangling'.

Research firm Gartner has stepped in to defend a report at the centre of allegations Queensland Health was biased in choosing a provider for its $182 million state-wide electronic medical record.
Senior departmental staff were alleged to have requested changes from the authors of a 2009 Gartner report to favour e-health provider Cerner over other bidders for the project.
Confidential emails between Queensland Health chief information officer Ray Brown, senior e-health director Tam Shepherd and staff were obtained and published by shadow health minister Mark McArdle under state Right to Information laws last week.
The emails [pdf] revealed that Graham Bretag of the department's e-health contract and vendor management e-health division had asked Gartner to alter a column denoting Cerner as the only company having a "generation three" computer-based patient record (CPR) installation in Australia.
-----

Queensland Health rejects claim of bias in e-health deal

QUEENSLAND Health has defended its procurement of a $182 million e-medical records (eMR) system for state hospitals amid claims of bias towards the market leader, Cerner.
Opposition health spokesman Mark McArdle has obtained 3120 pages of emails, strategies, plans and minutes generated about the eMR tender between June 2009 and April this year under state Right To Information laws.
Another 942 pages were not released due to being either "cabinet or commercial in confidence".
Mr McArdle claims the documents show senior departmental officers asked research firm Gartner to make changes to its independent report on a market scanning exercise in 2009.
-----

Telehealth simulation lab launches at UWS

The lab simulates a remote or stay-at-home patient environment with the aim of improving telehealth services
A new research lab that simulates telehealth services for remote and stay-at-home patients has opened at the University of Western Sydney (UWS).
The Telehealth Research and Innovation Lab (THRIL), located at UWS’ Campbelltown campus, has a fully furnished home lounge room equipped with sensors that transmit data about its occupants to researchers in a control room residing next door.
UWS School of Computing and Mathematics, Associate Professor Klaus Veil, said in “real life” the home could be thousands of kilometres from medical staff and still be linked to multiple healthcare providers and specialists.
-----

Many questions still plague Medicare Locals

26th Sep 2011 Dr Steve Hambleton
THE AMA has raised concerns about Medicare Locals (MLs) since they were first announced.
We still have no answers to our original questions around form and function and, importantly, guarantees on the key leadership roles of GPs in the management and decision-making of MLs.
I announced at the National Press Club in Canberra in July that I would visit each of the MLs and find out from the local GPs what they thought of the cornerstone of the government’s bold new direction in primary care.
So, in recent weeks I have visited three South Australian MLs – Country North, Country South, and Central Adelaide and Hills – and there is clearly a lack of knowledge and understanding of what is supposed to be going on at the grassroots level.
-----

Cancer patients die waiting for hospital letters

CANCER patients have been kept waiting so long to receive follow-up letters from their specialists that some have died before the advice arrived at their GPs.
A backlog of correspondence needing to be typed up at Westmead Hospital means about 700 people have waited up to three years for the letters to be sent.
In one case, a Sydney doctor received a letter from Westmead about a female patient with advanced skin cancer that had been dictated by a specialist on August 21, 2009, but was not typed up until September 16, 2011. By the time it reached Dr Adrian Sheen the woman had been dead for a year.
-----

Hard to swallow: pharmacists split over pill push

Julia Medew
September 27, 2011
PHARMACISTS who market dietary supplements to patients with prescription medicines may be breaking the law, the pharmacists' union says.
The chief executive officer of the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists & Managers Australia, Chris Walton, said under Australia's Health Professions Registration Act, pharmacy owners could not direct employee pharmacists to engage in unprofessional conduct, which would include ''pressuring the public to buy vitamins they may not need''.

Computers produce brain scan 'movies'

  • September 23, 2011 12:23PM
IT sounds like science fiction: While volunteers watched movie clips, a scanner watched their brains.
And from their brain activity, a computer made rough reconstructions of what they viewed.
Scientists reported that result yesterday and speculated such an approach might be able to reveal dreams and hallucinations someday.
In the future, it might help stroke victims or others who have no other way to communicate, said Jack Gallant, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author of the paper.
-----

Mozilla puts Firefox 7 on memory diet, patches 11 bugs

Continues to support aged Firefox 3.6 with security updates
  • Gregg Keizer (Computerworld (US))
  • 29 September, 2011 06:31
Mozilla yesterday patched 11 vulnerabilities in the desktop edition of Firefox as it upgraded the browser to version 7.
The company has batted a thousand so far in its rapid release schedule: Firefox 7 marks the third consecutive upgrade that Mozilla has met its every-six-week deadline for a new version of the browser.
Mozilla switched to the faster release tempo last March, when some wondered whether the open-source company -- which has historically struggled to ship on time -- would be able to make its milestones.
The biggest improvement to Firefox 7 is a reduction in memory use. Mozilla has previously claimed that the upgrade slashes memory consumption by as much as 50%
-----
Enjoy!
David.

AusHealthIT Poll Number 90 – Results – 3rd October, 2011.

The question was:
Should Large Complex Tertiary Hospitals Conduct Individualised Clinical System Implementations Or Be Forced Into a Statewide Model Build?
Full Implementation Autonomy
- 7 (21%)
Major Implementation Autonomy
-  9 (28%)
Neutral  
-  5 (15%)
Forced To Mostly Fit State-wide Model
-  4 (12%)
Full Compliance With State-wide Model
-  7 (21%)
 Votes : 32
A pretty clear  vote. 49% want major autonomy or better and 33% want a more inflexible approach.
Again, many thanks to those that voted!
David.