Hi Oliver, I think you will find that the intent of NEHTA - back in 2004 - was to enable the Health IT infrastructure (Standards, building blocks like EHR designs, identifiers, terminology, data standards etc) to be developed that would enable the vision of a Shared EHR (Healthconnect) that was to be a national (not state based) initiative.
By 2005 a review of Tim's bureaucrats determined this was not a good idea - was complex, would cost a bundle etc - so a change management strategy "replaced" Healthconnect. Just a bit later the Department developed a National E-Health Strategy - but it was canned internally and the peak governance entity - which should have steered NEHTA - AHIC (Aust Health Information Council) was dissolved. NEHTA has thus been without a strategic mission but have continued to work on the "building blocks". In Feb 2007 a revamped AHIC, chaired by the Dean of Medicine from Melb Uni - will reform and try to work out what to do. Apparently this new chair is a great venom scientist who knows not much about Health IT. Frankly its all off on a frolic! 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 Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:56:34 +1030, Oliver Frank wrote: > Tom Bowden wrote: > >> I have been expecting NEHTA to bowl in and take overall responsibility for >> making things change, Robert says (and I have heard other NEHTA staff echo >> this), that they take no responsibility for actual change happening or the >> lack of any change to date and that they exist therefore to develop technical >> specifications and architectures in the hope that they will be implemented. >> If this is the case, who does have responsibility for leading the transition? >> >> > I notice that in the replies so far to your message, Tom, that none of us has > yet been able to provide an answer to this important question of yours. I > wonder whether there is any answer to it out there in governmentland or > bureaucratland. > >> I still cannot believe that such ambiguity exists. >> > For some reason Australia, by contrast with New Zealand, seems often to > suffer from a dreadful paralysis. I have often wondered whether this is caused > mainly by the even larger geography than New Zealand's, our ridiculous > State/Federal disjunctions and jurisdictional fights or by something in the Australian > character. Whatever the cause, I have often admired New Zealand's ability to > just get on and implement changes in its health system (acknowledging that some > of them have turned out to be experiments that failed).
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
