Hi Jon,
Given my contact details are on every e-mail and I am contactible via the blog I can only surmise they don't want me.....(or they would have called!)
I sure don't have all the answers by any means but I am old enough and battle scarred enough to maybe help.
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 15:44:45 +1100, Dr John Van Dyck wrote:
> Why dont you join them David and get it all organised J)))))))))))))))))))))
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David More
> Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 3:10 PM
> To: Richard Hosking; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Re: NEHTAs Annual Report What We are Not Being Told!
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> 1.Establish something like the US CCHIT and make sure we have quality client systems for all GP's and Specialists available that one can purchase with
> confidence and which will be around long term.
>
>
> 2. Get in place systems which support advanced Clinical Decision Support and which make it useful to use ALL the capabilities we identfied as being important
> in the 1997 GPCS report.
>
>
> 3. Recognise that making available secure communications for such simple things as specialist letters and so on in an accessible form could make a real
> difference and is doable today.
>
>
> 4. Assist the States select hospital systems that really work and will be around - cf iSoft going broke and Tasmania buying a records scannning system. Again
> can start today - not in 2009.
>
>
> 5. Develop a business case urgently to convince Government to invest where the bang for the buck is in patient safely and quality of care.
>
>
> 6. Sponsor CIAP like resources for all GPs and Specialists for EBM
>
>
> I could go on... I am sure others will have different lists
>
>
> Overall - adopt a health not IT focus and start treating the health system as a whole and investing and supporting both hospital and ambulatory care systems.
> There is a lot of "low hanging fruit" to be harvested while we wait for interoperability!
>
>
> 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 11:53:51 +0800, Richard Hosking wrote:
>
>
>> What could they do tomorrow?
>>
>
>> R
>
>
>> David More wrote:
>
>
>>> 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. http://www.eset.com
>
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>
>>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>>>>
>
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>
>>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>>>>
>
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>> __________ NOD32 1.1850 (20061102) Information __________
>
>
>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>>>
>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>
>>> 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
