The followingarticle appeared today.
E-health blueprint needs 'fine tuning': Industry
The finalisedConcept of Operations document still lacks answers to all the issues raised bythe RACGP, according to the organisation
- Chloe Herrick (Computerworld)
- 14 September, 2011 10:10
The FederalGovernment’s finalised Concept of Operations on its $466.7 million PersonallyControlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) project still needs “fine tuning”,according to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP).
The document (PDF), releasedearlier this week, finalised details put forward in the draft report issuedin April this year.
RACGPNational Standing Committee on e-health chairperson, Dr John Bennett, saiddespite the document failing to address all the issuespreviously raised by the college, it was important that stakeholders “joinforces” to ensure the rollout is completed by July 2012.
“The RACGP is pleased that the final plan forthe PCEHR has been released and whilst not all our previously raised issueshave been addressed, it is important that Australia gets underway with theimplementation of the PCEHR,” Bennet said in a statement.
“TheGovernment’s final PCEHR plan has taken on board most of the RACGP’s concernsthat were in our response to the draft plan, including our recommendation thatemergency access will be provided to the full record where required, and thatthis is supported by a full audit trail so patients can see who has accessedtheir record.”
However thecollege did raise concerns that the current plan still lacks any incentives forGPs and urged the government to consider how the extra effort required by GPswill be acknowledged.
“We wouldlike to see amendments to the Medicare Benefits Schedule to recognise theadditional workload GPs will undertake in consultations initiating andmaintaining the patient’s shared health summary and other elements of thePCEHR.”
More here:
The problemswith this comment - “it was important that stakeholders “join forces” to ensurethe rollout is completed by July 2012” are at least threefold.
First we knowfor certain the PCEHR system will be in no way finished or complete by 2012.
Second whywould a leading clinical college say well this is really much less than wewanted but we will just wear it. I am sure that is hardly the leadership theirmembers are hoping for from the RACGP. I wonder how much of the RACGP’s acquiescenceis because of the sponsorship relationship between NEHTA and the College.
Third justwhy should a learned college accept a deeply second best:
In theirsubmission they said there were issues in the following areas:
2. Key issues
TheRACGP would like to focus our response on the following aspects of the PCEHRConcept of Operations:
1. Dataquality
2. Role ofthe nominated provider
3. Workloadfor general practices
4. Privacyand confidentiality
5.Terminology used within the PCEHR
6. Complexityof the PCEHR design
7. Change andadoption/support
8. Funding
It is clearthe College is just one of many stakeholders who have not seen even themajority of their issues addressed - data quality is a real biggie they can’tbe at all happy with!
Just why weall have to have a system with so many flaws just eludes me and to say ‘it’snot much good but we have to go with it” is just nonsense.
Mad stuff!
David.
