I guess the problem is that no-one actually ever gets around to writing
any software.
It seems like voodoo - only the medicine men (ie private contractors)
can do it.
It remains a mystery to the average bureaucrat
R
Ian Cheong wrote:
Present problems relate to:
* overemphasis on "standards"
* underemphasis on implementation
The implementation projects were healthconnect and mediconnect. They
were standards-based.
What significant implementation projects are left?
What clinical data sharing programs (program as like project, not as
in computer) exist?
Sorry, foundations without a building on top are not much more use
than a big hole in the ground.
Standards and implementation need to be closely tied to achieve
success - build small things, make them work, demonstrate they pay for
themselves, build more things or build bigger things with the profits.
Actually the bubble usually bursts because we have too much foundation
and no sign of a usable building and the people supplying the money
decide to cut their losses.
Ian.
At 7:10 pm +1000 10/5/06, Michael Tooth wrote:
Hugh,
This is very close to the model used by the Tasmanian HealthConnect
Trial in terms of emergency access. The vast majority of the benefits
of having accessable information come from Current Medications,
Allergies/Alerts, Path results and Admission/Discharge notifications.
Having it a central repository as summary data means that it is
available when the doctor is not. Medical Director generated this data
with little operator input, and once the patients realised that there
was little threat, the privacy issues settled very quickly.
But, once you get the enthusiasts and "planners" involved, then it
starts to get the typical software bloat problems; why can't we have the
discharge BP, what about when their next clinic appointment is ; why
can't we message them about their appointment? Before you know it,
non-clinicians are writing frighteningly inaccurate scenarios about the
inflated benefits and finally the bubble bursts.
It would seem to me that NeHTA is working steadily and methodically
towards the implementation of realisable implementations by making sure
that the foundations are actually there instead of building a palace in
mid-air. Perhaps when the foundations are in and the software industry
can feel sure that there are some believable applicable standards then
they and not the government will be able to develop the applications we
are all looking for.
Dr Michael Tooth
GP Hobart
NeHTA Clinical Advisory Group
Dr Hugh Nelson wrote:
Hi Peter,
I was impressed by the report of the Scottish approach to allowing
access to an emergency medical summary - this means that the GP still
has the patients record, but the summary is created by software and
posted somewhere where it is able to be accessed by appropriately
authorised entities like A&E medicos etc.
Is NEHTA looking at anything like this?
cheers,
Hugh.
Peter MacIsaac wrote:
With regard to discussion arising on GPCG list re: recent HL7
workshop on Webservices and SOA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
