A personal perspective on the reality of the PCeHR –what was promised, what was done, what was delivered.
“We’re doing this based on the hard work already achieved, not trying to build a one-size-fits-all system from scratch.” (Minister’s bold emphasis)
“I can confirm that the Government is not going to build a massive data repository. We don’t believe it would deliver any additional benefits to clinicians or patients – and it creates unnecessary risks.”(Minister’s own bold emphasis)
“the Government has committed $467 million to develop electronic health records into the future.”
Minister Roxon Opening Address to the eHealth Conference, Revolutionising Australias’s Health Care, Nov 2010.
Sounds good. All over the World eHealth has been recognised as one of the means of enabling governments to maximise their healthcare spend. President Obama called it the “low hanging fruit”, and the then Health Minister Roxon assured Australia that “e-health promises change that will transform Australia’s health care.” Implemented properly there is little doubt that the duplication, errors, and care co-ordination can be significantly improved. So what happened over the last 2 years and 11 months to result in Minister Dutton’s announcement that over a billion dollars has been wasted by the previous government?
The Rudd – Gillard – Rudd government’s National eHealth Strategy and the recommendations of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission Report had support in the industry. The National eHealth Strategy was clear that there should be no top down, big bang approach. Industry should be given the support of some critical infrastructure, and left alone to get on with their business. The NHHRC said the plan “should not require government involvement with designing, buying or operating IT systems” - this had not worked anywhere internationally. In 2010 when Australia was about to spend $467 Million, there were reports of the UK Health Service National Programme for IT having spent £16 Billion without success.
There were many lessons which Australia could learn from, and there was almost a sense of optimism amongst industry in Australia. There was a sensible plan for a ten year rollout of ehealth. There appeared to be no political milestones. There was emphasis placed on the governance. There was pretty good funding. Despite concern over the grant of several million without tender to 3 of the “First Wave” sites, industry was slightly mollified by the explanation that there would be transparency of what occurred in this First Wave so that the lessons could be shared and industry spared some of the inevitable pain of change. Many in the medical software industry believed that the government was aiming for sustainable growth in the sector, good for innovation and productivity of an industry which Austrade lists as a key growth sector.
Almost three years down the track and with over a Billion dollars spent, industry optimism has been replaced by cynicism and disappointment. Australia has a very expensive piece of infrastructure which is not achieving its stated purpose. Roxon’s promise of mothers having their sick children’s medication histories at their fingertips appears ludicrous. The experience of patients, doctors, allied health care and the army of others involved in health services has not improved. In fact in some cases it is worse. Promising so much, and delivering so little. Ignoring international learnings and recklessly throwing millions of dollars at getting “numbers” of people registered without any interest in meaningful clinical outcomes. There were significant doubts as to whether there was in fact a level playing field. Even some of the keenest “eHealth heroes” have walked away. A huge loss for eHealth, the medical software industry and Australia.
Over the last 3 years we have had a government which pledged to do one thing but did the opposite, competed with industry, failed to collaborate and fostered a culture of secrecy. We continued to hear how successful the PCeHR was despite first-hand experience of its deficiencies. eHealth was misunderstood by the people who were charged with its implementation. The motherhood statements in grand Hotel Ballrooms about how all the “waves’ would provide critical lessons for the ehealth reform have all unravelled.
The reason I am pleased about Minister Dutton’s review is that it openly recognises the failure of the project and has 10 sensible terms of reference which acknowledge the important role the private sector should play. Some of us in the industry were starting to feel as though we lived in a parallel universe. The industry does not want much. If the government could simply do as little as possible and as much as necessary, we would be a lot better off. Fund national infrastructure like a workable National Authentication system, reward success, incentivise meaningful use. None of these are new ideas. They are all a part of the Strategy and Report which the previous Government said it followed. The “ massive data repository” which the government was not going to build, has been built. Whilst it may not be fit for the purpose which successive Health Ministers ascribed to it, it could be beneficially used as a national reporting database. It was never meant to do all the co-ordination and specialised tasks that are done by so many smart medical software systems. We all know that a one size fits all will not suit the diverse needs of the Australian health system.
I am glad that the review is only 6 weeks long. The industry deserves certainty and a clear direction. This whole project needs some sunshine to enable the eHealth reform to get back on track. The original road map is there and the medical software industry has the capacity to make it work. The above is an entirely personal view. In a fortnight the medical software industry members will be meeting to conduct live polling to consider the terms of reference and identify key areas in which they can contribute to the process of the Review Panel.
Emma Hossack is CEO of Extensia and the Secretary of the Medical Software Industry Association. The view above are, however, her personal views alone.
-----
Enjoy!
David.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Monday, November 04, 2013
Weekly Australian Health IT Links – 4th November, 2013.
Here are a few I have come across the last week or so.
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
This week we have one enquiry starting and two reporting in Victoria. So e-Health is in for a very interesting time indeed.
Watch and enjoy the ride!
-----
Hospitals to get greater choice over technology systems
Date October 28, 2013 - 9:29AM
Richard Willingham
Hospitals will be given greater autonomy as part of an overhaul of the Victorian health system's information and communication services, Victoria Health Minister David Davis has revealed.
Following a review of the previous Labor government's HealthSMART system, the Coalition is set to announce that health providers will now be able to choose their own system. Currently, all hospitals and other health professionals must use a mandated system.
Mr Davis is due to release a ministerial review of the sector's information and communication technology on Monday.
-----
Victorian Health to decentralise IT decision making
Summary: A ministerial review of Victorian Health technology has deemed that the era of centralised shared services is over.
Decisions involving IT and communications technology across Victorian health organisations should be further devolved to local health boards, which will be responsible for owning the solutions and primarily accountable for their decisions, a ministerial review into IT throughout Victorian Health has recommended.
Released yesterday by Victorian Minister for Health David Davis, the review recommended that IT decisions be subject to normal business governance mechanisms and guided by state-wide health priorities; that the state-wide approach to IT be abandoned; and that a central governance council be created to oversee the role of IT.
For a decade, Victorian Health was embroiled in a series of setbacks and blowouts in an attempt to implement a state-wide IT strategy dubbed HealthSmart that looked to bring together the disparate IT systems used throughout the state. The HealthSmart project began as a four-year, AU$320 million project to update IT systems in hospitals and other medical facilities across the state that was due to be completed in 2007.
-----
Ministerial Review of Victorian Health Sector Information and Communication Technology
Posted Wed, 30/10/2013 - 08:09 by Fran Molloy
The Victorian Health Sector ICT Review Panel have issued their report, which recommends changes in the three major areas of governance, procurement and investment in health sector ICT.
Download here:
-----
Mater Health Services uses technology to aid flexible working
Health provider has rolled out workforce management solution to automate rosters
- Hamish Barwick (CIO)
- 31 October, 2013 15:16
Queensland-based Mater Health Services is using workforce management technology to efficiently create rosters for its clinical staff, 85 per cent of whom work part time.
Mater Health Services' people and learning executive director, Caroline Hudson, told CIO Australia that prior to the rollout in 2010 it had used spreadsheets to organise rostering.
“Rosters tend to be created on a fortnightly basis and staff were finding it hard to keep track of their hours. Commitments outside work become very hard to juggle if there is little or no certainty.”
-----
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/the-hon-peter-dutton-mp-portfolio
Portfolio Responsibilities
Portfolio responsibilities for The Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Health, Minister for Sport
Page last updated: 28 October 2013
As senior Minister and member of Cabinet, Minister Dutton holds overall responsibility for the portfolio and its agencies and programmes with specific responsibility for:
- Medicare benefits
- Pharmaceutical benefits
- Pharmacy
- Hospitals policy and implementation of funding reforms
- Private health insurance
- Health workforce capacity
- Medical indemnity insurance
- Primary health care and preventative health
- E-health
- Health and medical research including human cloning and stem cell research
- Mental health policy
- National health priorities
- Biosecurity and bioterrorism
- Immunisation
- BBVs/STIs including HIV/AIDS
- Diagnostic and technology
- Sport and recreation
- Deregulation
-----
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/530432/victorian_department_health_slammed_ict_system_audit/
Victorian Department of Health slammed in ICT system audit
HealthSMART rollout $87 million over budget, according to latest Auditor-General report
- Byron Connolly (CIO)
- 30 October, 2013 12:22
The Victorian Department of Health has failed to implement clinical ICT systems across 19 of the state’s health services due to poor planning and inadequate understanding of system requirements, according to a damning audit report released Wednesday.
The audit examined the status of ICT systems in eight Victorian health service providers – including four HealthSMART system rollouts – to determine if they had been appropriately planned and implemented, and benefits were being realised.
Victorian Auditor-General John Doyle said in the report that the department “significantly underestimated project scope costs and time lines”. He said it also underestimated the required clinical and other workflow redesign and change management efforts.
-----
Victoria's HealthSmart system introduces 'safety risk' to patients
Summary: Victoria's statewide healthcare IT system has failed to achieve its goals, and has been criticised for putting patients at potential risk by administering wrong medications or incorrect doses.
The Victorian Department of Health has an inadequate understanding of its clinical IT systems and failed to plan adequately for 19 of its services, according to a report from the state's auditor-general.
The report (PDF) found that the department "significantly underestimated project scope, costs, and timelines, as well as the required clinical and other workflow redesign and change management efforts".
At the centre of the state's issues is the statewide HealthSmart system. The clinical IT system has only been installed at four of the 19 state hospitals that it had been planned for, and only one installation is considered to be fully implemented.
-----
National Clinical Terminology and Information Service (NCTIS) announces the upcoming retirement of Australian Medicines Terminology v2 releases
Created on Friday, 01 November 2013
The NCTIS has previously advised licence holders of the development of a new version of the Australian Medicines Terminology (AMT) model, namely, AMT v3. This model change was based on extensive stakeholder engagement and feedback on the v2 Model since its first release for clinical use in June 2009.
The NCTIS have made the decision to not produce parallel releases of both the AMT v2 and AMT v3 and will be retiring the AMT v2 releases from May 2014. It is anticipated that the final release of the AMT v2 will be at the end of April 2014. Following this date the AMT v3 release will supersede AMT v2 and all current users will be required to migrate to the AMT v3.
-----
Are standards necessary?
November 1, 2013
A common strategy for structuring complex human systems is to demand that everything be standards-based. The standards movement has taken hold in education and healthcare, and technical standards are seen as a prerequisite for information technology.
In healthcare, standards are visible in three critical areas, typical of many sectors: 1/ Evidence-based practice, where synthesis of the latest research generates best-practice recommendations; 2/ Safety, where performance indicators flag when processes are sub-optimal; and 3/ Technical standards, especially in information systems, which are designed to ensure different technical systems can interoperate with each other, or comply with minimum standards required for safe operation. There is a belief that ‘standardisation’ will be a forcing function, with compliance ensuring the “system” moves to the desired goal – whether that be safe care, appropriate adoption of recommended practices, or technology that actually works once implemented.
-----
Three dimensions of skin and bone
Posted Tue, 29/10/2013 - 20:44 by Fran Molloy
Bio-inkjet printers may be a standard piece of equipment in operating theatres of the future, with human tissue grown from a patient’s own cells used to regenerate skin, bone and even organs.
3D printers are already used extensively in medical device production where the ability to test design changes immediately can shorten production cycles hugely.
Dr Robert Gorkin is the Strategic Development Officer at the University of Wollongong’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, headed by Professor Gordon Wallace.
The Centre is involved in cutting-edge research at a range of different levels – including the ability to ‘print’ human tissue.
-----
Australia to test GP subset of SNOMED CT
Under an agreement between the International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation (IHTSDO) and the World Organisation of Family Doctors (Wonca), a team at the Family Medicine Research Centre, University of Sydney, overseen by a Project Group made up of GPs from six countries, has developed:
• a small subset of SNOMED CT concepts commonly used in general practice internationally (known as the general practice reference set or GP RefSet)
• a map between concepts in the GP RefSet to the International Classification of Primary Care, Version 2 (ICPC-2).
The GP RefSet has been built by collecting actual “grass roots” general practice terms from seven countries around the world, amalgamating all the terms into a single list, and determining the most commonly used terms at an international level.
-----
What impact will FHIR have on the Healthcare Integration Market?
Posted on October 30, 2013 by Grahame Grieve
Yesterday, I gave a FHIR update as a keynote presentation at the International HL7 Interoperability conference (IHIC) on the subject. You can get my slides from the IHIC website or the FHIR SVN. As part of that presentation, I discussed the likely impact of FHIR on the Healthcare Integration Market.
FHIR will Drive Interoperability Costs Down
FHIR is going to reduce the cost of interoperability. Here’s why
-----
Personal data key to evidence-based policies
30 October, 2013
The Productivity Commission says the federal government needs to make better use of Australians’ personal information to control the country’s ballooning health and welfare bill.
The commission’s frank assessment of government’s poor use of its information databases is likely to come to the attention of Treasurer Joe Hockey’s commission of audit, which is looking for ways to consolidate or even outsource government services.
The Australian Financial Review reported on Monday Treasurer Joe Hockey is considering a plan for Australia Post to take over the front office operations of Centrelink
-----
Australia: Update on Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records - legal and privacy issues
Last Updated: 28 October 2013
By Alison Choy Flannigan
As part of the 2010/11 Federal budget, the Government announced a $466.7 million investment over two years for a national Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) system for all Australians who choose to register on-line, from 2012-2013. This initiative has the potential to be a revolutionary step for Australian health care, in terms of both consumer's access to their own health information and improvement in information which will be available to health professionals when they treat a patient.
-----
Melbourne hack Tuesdays building OpenMRS e-health extension
Summary: This week's Melbourne Knowledge Week celebrations expected to drive newcomers to ThoughtWorks' Weekly Hack Nights for Humanity, whose developers have half finished a module for expanding the globally used OpenMRS e-health system.
Two dozen ThoughtWorks employees and enthusiasts from outside the company are expected to converge on the company's Melbourne offices tonight for several hours of collaborative work on an open healthcare-interchange standard that's delivering e-health to some of the world's most impoverished countries.
The software in question — OpenMRS — is a free and open-source medical records system that has an extensive development base around the world and has been successfully used during crises such as the response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
Its free access and open design have made OpenMRS a favourite for charity and relief organisations around the world, which can quickly roll it out to large numbers of relief staff without considering licensing costs.
-----
World-first machine bypasses cochlear 'distortions'
- John Ross
- The Australian
- October 31, 2013
A WORLD-FIRST brain scanning machine, unveiled yesterday at Macquarie University, will allow therapists to do something they haven’ t been able to do before - analyse neurological activity in people with cochlear implants.
The new magnetoencephalography or MEG machine, which can measure brain function despite electronic interference from the implants, means therapists will no longer be operating “in the dark” when they fine-tune the devices.
Blake Johnson, chief investigator with the Centre for Cognition and its Disorders, said the machine could also give rise to a new generation of implants capable of dealing with people’s idiosyncratic responses to the devices. “(And) there are vast opportunities for research,” Dr Johnson said.
-----
Podcast: MMRGlobal’s Bob Lorsch addresses the ‘patent troll’ issue
Two weeks ago, I picked apart a terribly misleading, ideologically steeped Fox News story that wrongly linked the initial failure of the healthcare.gov Affordable Care Act insurance exchange to the Meaningful Use EHR incentive program. Among my many criticisms was the reporter’s apparent confusion between an actual EHR and My Medical Records, the untethered PHR offered by MMRGlobal.
In that post, I said, “I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence that MMRGlobal isn’t much more than a patent troll.”
Bob Lorsch, CEO of that company, posted in the comments that I should put my money where my mouth is and interview him. (I had interviewed Lorsch before, but never wrote a story because of my longstanding policy of not paying attention to untethered PHRs since none that I know of has gained any market traction, despite years of hype.).
-----
Reform health cover or collapse: Medibank warns government
- Sean Parnell
- The Australian
- November 02, 2013
AUSTRALIA'S largest health fund has warned the federal government that insurance is now so expensive the industry is at risk of collapse without major reforms.
The situation is so dire that Medibank Private - the only government-owned fund - is even proposing insurers be allowed to discriminate against members who make the most claims in an effort to save money.
Ahead of a scoping study that will decide whether it is sold by the government, Medibank Private has called for urgent action to stop people dumping their insurance.
Medibank Private says it fears "a downward spiral of premium increases and declining participation" that will force people to use the public system and increase government healthcare costs.
-----
GARTNER: Every Budget Is Becoming An IT Budget As Australian IT Spend Grows To $77.2 Billion Next Year
Liz Tay 29 October, 2013
Technology analyst firm Gartner is expecting Australian firms to spend a total of $77.2 billion on technology products and services in 2014, up 2.3% from this year.
Analysts today reported that businesses around the world were coming into a “digital world” in which “every budget [is] an IT budget; every company [is] a technology company; every business [is] a digital leader; and every person [is] a technology company”.
-----
Enjoy!
David.
The PCEHR Enquiry Terms Of Reference Reveal The Government Really Doesn’t Get It.
Here are the Terms of Reference as announced yesterday.
The panel will conduct a Review into the personally controlled electronic health record system dealing with implementation, uptake and including, but not limited to the following:
The Panel will make findings and recommendations to the Minister.
----- End TOR.
The problem in all this is that there seems to be an assumption that the PCEHR can be fixed and that the Program should continue.
Where is the consideration around just how sensible the basic PCEHR idea is, if the design architecture makes sense and an assessment of the evidence that might be available to confirm or deny this assertion.
There also does not seem to be any review of just what the objectives for the Program should be and how these should be assessed. I note no clear mentions of patient outcomes, patient safety and so on.
If you don’t have a clear non-technical view of what objectives are sought then designing IT to reach the objectives is impossible!
I also wonder how what is found in this enquiry will fit with the Deloittes Review / Refresh of the National E-Health Strategy. I am sure Deloittes it taking a broader and probably more sensible starting point than we are seeing in this effort.
I really fear this is going to turn out very badly indeed!
David.
Review Terms of Reference
The panel will conduct a Review into the personally controlled electronic health record system dealing with implementation, uptake and including, but not limited to the following:
- The gaps between the expectations of users and what has been delivered
- The level of consultation with end users during the development phase
- The level of use of the PCEHR by health care professions in clinical settings
- Barriers to increasing usage in clinical settings
- Key clinician and patient usability issues
- Work that is still required including new functions that improve the value proposition for clinicians and patients
- Drivers and incentives to increase usage for both industry and health care professionals
- The applicability and potential integration of comparable private sector products
- The future role of the private sector in providing solutions
- The policy settings required to generate private sector solutions
The Panel will make findings and recommendations to the Minister.
----- End TOR.
The problem in all this is that there seems to be an assumption that the PCEHR can be fixed and that the Program should continue.
Where is the consideration around just how sensible the basic PCEHR idea is, if the design architecture makes sense and an assessment of the evidence that might be available to confirm or deny this assertion.
There also does not seem to be any review of just what the objectives for the Program should be and how these should be assessed. I note no clear mentions of patient outcomes, patient safety and so on.
If you don’t have a clear non-technical view of what objectives are sought then designing IT to reach the objectives is impossible!
I also wonder how what is found in this enquiry will fit with the Deloittes Review / Refresh of the National E-Health Strategy. I am sure Deloittes it taking a broader and probably more sensible starting point than we are seeing in this effort.
I really fear this is going to turn out very badly indeed!
David.
PCEHR Interview On Radio National - Direct Link.
Here is the direct link.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/abbott-launches-inquiry-into-e-health/5067116
6 minutes long.
Enjoy.
David.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/abbott-launches-inquiry-into-e-health/5067116
6 minutes long.
Abbott launches inquiry into e-health
The Federal Government has announced an inquiry into e-health, which it says is currently costing almost $200 000 a patient.
The $1-billion dollar health initiative has been largely shunned by Australia's doctors and is described by the Abbott government as a 'scandal.'
The e-health system, introduced by the former Labor government was designed to allow healthcare providers and hospitals to view and share an individual's health information.
The $1-billion dollar health initiative has been largely shunned by Australia's doctors and is described by the Abbott government as a 'scandal.'
The e-health system, introduced by the former Labor government was designed to allow healthcare providers and hospitals to view and share an individual's health information.
Enjoy.
David.
Dr Stephen Hambleton Speaks On His Aims And Concerns In The E-Health Debate. He Is Part Of The Enquiry.
Dr Hambleton spoke on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast Show at 7.44am this am.
There will be audio available very soon from this link.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/
Basic message seemed to be that unless the system is actually easy to use and actually adds value and is not having bits switched on and off by patients it won’t be used.
David.
There will be audio available very soon from this link.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/
Basic message seemed to be that unless the system is actually easy to use and actually adds value and is not having bits switched on and off by patients it won’t be used.
David.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
The Medical Journal Of Australia Is Insulting You. Why Is That?
This appeared this evening.
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (9): 569-570.
doi:
10.5694/mja13.10862
Sadly you can read - the mostly old - references and the credentials of the august authors.
Sadly what they are saying is secret. It's locked away!
The MJA and those who agree to these restrictions are just luddites and stupid.
Grow up Prof Leeder (Editor) and stop this nonsense.
Secrecy is not the way you treat medical information.
David.
p.s. I can access this via various University links but the public can't. Just how is that fair given the authors are both funded - mostly - via the public purse?
It is time for clinical guidelines to enter the digital age
Ian N Olver and Jutta J Von DincklageMed J Aust 2013; 199 (9): 569-570.
doi:
10.5694/mja13.10862
Sadly you can read - the mostly old - references and the credentials of the august authors.
Sadly what they are saying is secret. It's locked away!
The MJA and those who agree to these restrictions are just luddites and stupid.
Grow up Prof Leeder (Editor) and stop this nonsense.
Secrecy is not the way you treat medical information.
David.
p.s. I can access this via various University links but the public can't. Just how is that fair given the authors are both funded - mostly - via the public purse?
Minister Dutton Announces A Very Brief Enquiry Into The PCEHR. Too Short To Be Useful or Real I Fear.
This was released earlier today.
Hon Mr Peter Dutton MP
Minister for Health and Minister for Sport
3 November 2013
Federal Government to review electronic health records
Federal Health Minister, the Hon Peter Dutton, today announced a review of Australia’s struggling Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records program which has failed to attract enough doctors to participate in the project.
“While the previous Coalition government laid the foundations for ehealth by getting computers into doctors’ practices, Labor comprehensively messed up the next stage and has wasted over a billion dollars in its failed attempt at the second phase - moving to personal electronic health records”.
Mr Dutton said a year after the introduction of the electronic health records system only a fraction of Australians have established a record and for those who have, only a few hundred doctors have added a Shared Health Summary.
“This defeats the purpose of having a national, electronic system that is meant to help save lives.
"The government fully supports the concept of electronic health records but it must be fit for purpose and cost effective.
“I am therefore announcing today a review of ehealth records to be chaired by Richard Royle, Executive Director of the UnitingCare Health group in Queensland.
"Mr Royle holds a Bachelor of Arts and Masters of Health Administration degrees, and is an active member of the Executive Team responsible for all of UnitingCare's services in Queensland, including Bluecare and UnitingCare Community, as well as UnitingCare Health.
"In addition, Mr Royle is Vice-President of the Australian Private Hospitals Association and he brings more than 30 years experience in management of public and private health services to the position of Review Chair. He is also overseeing the implementation of Australia’s first fully integrated digital hospital in a pilot project at Hervey Bay in Queensland.”
Mr Dutton said Mr Royle will be assisted in the Review by Dr Steve Hambleton, president of the Australian Medical Association and Andrew Walduck, Chief Information Officer of Australia Post.
"The Review team's expertise encompasses information technology, patient and medical services and business administration which I believe is the right mix to put the electronic health records program back on track."
The Review panel will invite submissions from the public along with key stakeholder groups including peak clinical bodies. The Review will report back to Minister Dutton by mid-December 2013 after which the government will consider the recommendations and respond.
Media contact: Kay McNiece, Minister Dutton’s Office, 0412 132 58
Review Terms of Reference
The panel will conduct a Review into the personally controlled electronic health record system dealing with implementation, uptake and including, but not limited to the following:
- The gaps between the expectations of users and what has been delivered
- The level of consultation with end users during the development phase
- The level of use of the PCEHR by health care professions in clinical settings
- Barriers to increasing usage in clinical settings
- Key clinician and patient usability issues
- Work that is still required including new functions that improve the value proposition for clinicians and patients
- Drivers and incentives to increase usage for both industry and health care professionals
- The applicability and potential integration of comparable private sector products
- The future role of the private sector in providing solutions
- The policy settings required to generate private sector solutions
The Panel will make findings and recommendations to the Minister.
There is some coverage here as well.
Govt launches e-health records inquiry
9:06am November 3, 2013
Health Minister Peter Dutton said the system cost $1 billion but so far only a few hundred doctors were uploading patients' records into it.
…..
Mr Dutton said there were savings to be made in the health budget through the electronics records system.
"The problem is that the former government spent about $1 billion in this area and the number of people actively using the records numbers in the thousands," he told Sky News.
…..
Mr Dutton said the inquiry would examine, the funding, contracts, governance arrangements and contracts.
"If we don't get it right, I suspect we are going to be having the same discussion in five years time, having spent more money but no patient outcomes," he said.
…..
Mr Dutton said he wanted to make sure the money being spent was spent efficiently.
"At the moment it's a meaningless record, doctors won't embrace it, they are not populating the information, patients are missing out and taxpayers are copping the cost," he said.
Full article here:
So what do we have here:
1. A six week enquiry.
2. No specific e-Health expertise in the key staff.
3. No Medical Software industry representation on the Committee.
4. Very little time for anyone to prepare submissions or be consulted.
5. No apparent commitment to release the outcome of the enquiry.
The question that has to be asked is - “Is this the Clayton’s Enquiry? - the one you have when you are not actually having one” . This comment from Mr Dutton - apparently on Sky News - would seem to suggest so.
“Mr Dutton said he wanted to make sure the money being spent was spent efficiently.
"At the moment it's a meaningless record, doctors won't embrace it, they are not populating the information, patients are missing out and taxpayers are copping the cost," he said.”
Additionally, how could it be possible to properly review a 2.5 year $1 Billion program in less than six weeks?
There really have to be very big questions around all this. What changes could be made to make this flawed idea useful? What are the implications of just hoping all will be OK in the end? What would happen if it was just closed down? Is there anyone who should be held accountable for mislaying a $billion? Can this thing ever deliver real clinical benefits? Is the PCEHR just a way for the Government to collect and mine private information? What has been the damage to the Aussie e-Health sector while all this goes on?
Six weeks is a joke really!
There really have to be very big questions around all this. What changes could be made to make this flawed idea useful? What are the implications of just hoping all will be OK in the end? What would happen if it was just closed down? Is there anyone who should be held accountable for mislaying a $billion? Can this thing ever deliver real clinical benefits? Is the PCEHR just a way for the Government to collect and mine private information? What has been the damage to the Aussie e-Health sector while all this goes on?
Six weeks is a joke really!
While I will probably make a submission this has to be a con with a pre-determined outcome.
David.
AusHealthIT Poll Number 190 – Results – 3rd November, 2013.
The question was:
Do You Believe There Has Been Adequate Published Evaluation of The Impact Of E-Health In Australia?
Yes - We Know How Well It Is Going. 5% (2)
Probably 0% (0)
Probably Not 26% (10)
No - We Have No Idea What Difference E-Health is Making 69% (27)
I Have No Idea 0% (0)
Total votes: 39
Well it seems that almost all of those (95%) who read believe we are “evidence-lite” in OZ E-Health.
Again, many thanks to those that voted!
David.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)