Their mantra was "interoperability" and it seemed to me they were on a ruthless path towards that true end. This indeed might have rattled the MISA for all I know.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Hosking Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 2:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Re: NEHTAs Annual Report What We are Not Being Told! 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 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
