David, surely this is part of my point - you refer to material that is
not available to the general public - no matter how good it is it is
cosseted away in a powerpoint presentation on a remote web page in the USA.
jon
David More wrote:
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
<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 government’s unique position to
generate information.
Joel Kupersmith et al. on the VHA’s 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
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
