Hi Jon, For a clear explanation go watch this presentation.
================================================= Saturday, February 03, 2007 A Weekend Treat! Just a short note to let everyone who has a moment on the weekend that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has posted a fabulous presentation on their web site entitled Can Health IT Enhance the Pace and Power of Research? The Case for Rapid Learning Systems dated Jan 23, 2007. The URL is: http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/activitydetail.jsp?id=10195&type=3 Those involved in the roughly one hour presentation are described as follows: Carolyn Clancy, director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality joins national technology experts, including David Eddy and Lynn Etheredge, to showcase ways in which EHRs are making rapid advances in diabetes and cancer care, how rapid-learning capabilities will help accelerate personalized health care, and how, through rapid learning, doctors will do a much better job of advising patients. Also featured are John R. Lumpkin, M.D., M.P.H., RWJF senior vice president and director of the Health Care group and Joel Kupersmith, M.D., Chief Research & Development Officer, Veterans Health Administration. (HHS Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, originally scheduled, is unable to attend.) This is a very serious cast and this presentation is by far the best way to gain an initial appreciation of the key contents of the Health Affairs special issue on Rapid Learning Health IT and its implications. I would highly commend this to all readers of my blog. David. or read the papers mentioned here: Saturday, January 27, 2007 A Must Read Contribution from Health Affairs As a service to those who are not on the Health Affairs mailing list I pass on the following alert. For the next few weeks or so the articles will be accessible from the URL below. Enjoy and learn! Health Affairs Online Theme Issue On Rapid Learning Through Health IT Today Health Affairs has published online a set of papers that discuss using electronic data to advance knowledge. Data gathered in electronic health records on the experience of millions of patients have the potential to dramatically accelerate clinical research and provide the nation with timely, urgently needed knowledge about the value of new medical technologies, researchers report. You can access the set of papers at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.26.2.w107/DC2 Highlights include: Lynn Etheredge on what a rapid-learning system would look like and how we might get there. David Eddy on how mathematical modeling can assist in medical decision making. Sean Tunis et al. on the federal governments unique position to generate information. Joel Kupersmith et al. on the VHAs electronic health records system. Paul Wallace on integrated health IT at Kaiser Permanente. Walter Stewart et al. on tools to help physicians bridge the gap between the knowledge they posses and the knowledge they do not. Plus Perspectives from a wide range of system stakeholders. This is important material that adds powerfully to the business case for the expanded implementation of Health IT both here and in the USA. David. ============================================== 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 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:49:20 +1100, Jon Patrick wrote: > 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 > > > __________ NOD32 2057 (20070213) 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
