Hi John,
There would be a point of view that interoperability of the sort NEHTA is on about is a mirage that we may reach in the distant future - due to the inherent complexity of its achievement - unless you totally standardise as per what the NHS has attempted to do - and go badly mauled by the GPs.
In the mean time I would argue there are important and useful things that can be done tomorrow - many of which seem to be ignored in the pursuit of the "Holy Grail". The need for action after all the messing about since 1997 is getting pretty urgent.
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, 3 Nov 2006 14:20:42 +1100, Dr John Van Dyck wrote:
> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 1.1850 (20061102) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1850 (20061102) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
