As a tax-payer I have always had a problem with the arguments for the
need for an EHR. I have never heard any case that convinced me that it
would make a difference. That is different to my ability to read between
the lines and draw on my IT competency to construct justifications.
Unfortunately politicians or the public can't draw on the same
background. I think the medical profession doesn't explain clearly nor
simply enough the case.
For me what is missing is a plain English description of what would be
different for me the patient with my health care, not what would be
different for the physician. For example case studies that showed how a
person's care plan materially changed and saved their life because
information was available which would otherwise not be. Then you need to
argue that such cases happen often enough to warrant the public's
engagement. You assume that the public/politicians understand how you
work but they only understand you give them pills or cut them open and
sew them up.
One of the problems with IT is that it is unseen for the most part.
Other medical machines and paraphernalia can be seen, touched, etc,
hence it is self-evident they do something useful. IT has to be
justified by understanding work practices and how they improve case
outcomes by argument and clear exemplars.
It seems to me that some of the profession (e.g. GPCG members) have
moved from a knowledge intensive strategy (the historical nature of
medicine) to a more data intensive strategy wanting much more content
about the patient, and more timeliness of that data. An appreciation
that this change matters for sufficient enough patients in terms of
their health outcomes has yet to permeate the rest of society ( and
maybe some of your profession).
I am spurred to write to this list on this matter as I have just
received an old draft of a political party's health policy and it
suffers exactly from the complaints I make above. If their advisors
can't write a decent convincing case what chance do the pollies have of
engaging positively in Health IT.
cheers
jon patrick
Dr. Ken Harvey wrote:
John Mackenzie wrote:
No. It's time to start a political campaign to gain
funding for a professional software development
company to produce an open source EHR.
Given the forthcoming Federal election this concept could be timely.
However, in order to be electorally (and politically) appealing it would
need a one page outline on the expected benefits, why past history has
failed to deliver adequately; why this proposal is more likely to
succeed and how much it will cost.
Perhaps people might like to jot down ideas under these headings (or
others).
Cheers
Ken
begin:vcard
fn:Jon Patrick
n:Patrick;Jon
org:Faculty of Engineering;School of Information Technologies
adr;dom:;;University of Sydney
title:Chair of Language Technology
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~jonpat
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
