Yes fair criticism. In their defence they do provide a newsfeed and
appear to have been to many meetings some open some not. John says he
was impressed by their presentation - I guess I will have to attend one
of these meetings and see. They appear to have decided on a number of
standards and I would agree with all as they are open and generally
accepted. This seems to be a good start - the challenge will be of
course in getting anyone to adopt these standards
What are they trying to achieve anyway?
R
David More wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for that..just one question (two barrels - sorry)
Do you clearly understand just what NEHTA is trying to achieve and do
you think they are going about it the right way?
All my experience suggests that if you are trying something like this,
and want it to succeed, you communicate, communicate and communicate
and build trust, confidence etc.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to say if they think NEHTA
has met that performance metric.
For John - as single question also..if this direction is correct (and
I am sure much of it is - although without a top level strategy and
funds it may not be implementable in our lifetime) why all the secrecy?
Cheers
David
----
Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI
Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038
Skype Username : davidgmore
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:30:12 +0800, Richard Hosking wrote:
At the risk of being seen as a contrarian, I think you guys are being
a bit unfair to NEHTA and putting a black spin on things
OK there is fluff in the report, and the detailed financial
statements are not publicly available - I cant see why this should be
so. They do have
"receiveables' as assets - presumably unpaid grants. OTOH they do
have $7M in cash so they are presumably not short of money for
immediate purposes. It might
be significant if some states are not paying up while others are -
this would be useful to know. They seem to have been active in
recommending standards in
various areas, though to be fair some of them are just the status
quo. They have decided on a clinical termionology and paid for it -
the wrangling over this
(however important it may be - this has always eluded me) has gone on
interminably. They have decided on a web based messaging format and a
European standard
for an EHR structure. They appear to have recommended an open
security framework (WS-services - is this open?). I presume this means
that PKI is not to be
used for health messaging. HL7 V2 is still recommended as an interim
standard for messaging. It appears that work towards V3 will be
abandoned. (Again I have
never been really clear where HL7 fits in - it appers to be an
attempt to model health information as a schema while being a standard
for wrapping messages
at the same time - perhaps someone could enlighten me)
They have been active in various meetings though I must confess I
havent been to any as I would have to pay for myself
Certainly there doesnt seem to have ben much opportunity for
grassroots providers to have input - it has been a cabal of
bureaucrats and industry people. OK
they were a bit blunt to the MSIA - I wouldnt necessarily hold that
against them as the industry hasnt exactly been helpful in setting
standards as one would
expect of a commercial industry. What has happened since re industry
consultation?
R
David More wrote:
Oliver,
I am stunned and deeply saddened to find any information in this
domain (i.e e-Health) should be classified in any form. I thought the
purpose of all this
was saving lives not secretly empowering bureaucrats...
Your revelation is a faith in the goodness of man challenging
experience. David.
----
Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI
Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038
Skype Username : davidgmore
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:33:42 +1030, Oliver Frank wrote:
Aus HIT Man wrote:
It then concludes with the usual statements of audit independence
and a “concise financial report” – the real report seems to be secret
“The full financial report is available to Members free of charge
upon request.” (p20). That means we want to keep the public away I
would suggest – the
members being the jurisdictional CEOs are to be the only ones who
know what is going on!.
Perhaps this is a growing fashion. HealthConnect SA has released the
Executive Summary of its "High Level "Connectivity" Options Paper"
which is labelled on
the front cover as having been re-classified as being "'C1 Low'
Public information and unrestricted access", with a note below
saying that the complete
document has been classified as "'C3 high' Limited "need to know"
access" and available by application to the HealthConnect SA office.
007, where are you
now?
I was disappointed by the Executive Summary which seemed to say
nothing new and managed to insult GPs and the Health Provider
Registry run by the Divisions
in South Australia while doing so. I am not going to chase the
complete document. Either it says something useful and we can all
read it freely or
doesn't, in which case it stay unread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
__________ NOD32 1.1850 (20061102) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
