Ross, Given what has been achieved by Australia's communication vendors, it seems a bit of a long bow to claim that adequate security for key communications is not accessible to the Austin or wanted by referrers.
I endorse the suggestion of getting the healthcare provider organisation groups in the Austins catchment area together to discuss the local communication needs and work together to develop at least a locally workable solution. Waiting for statewide or national programs to sort out health communication is not sensible, as such require too much organisation and cost. We do however have to move a series of unique and uncoordinated health service solutions, of which the Austin's efforts or that provided currently by most path and radiology practices are examples. Integrated health communication could start at the regional level, with the hospitals, GP divisions, diagnostic services sitting around one table, and implementing locally agreed and perhaps funded solutions based on a solid health IT standards platform to support scalable and affordable solutions. I think we have seen a few of these emerging, perhaps the latest is the NT e-prescribing system. The standards are there also, what is needed is implementation. This is the approach being examined in countries where mega national systems are not on the agenda eg the US with their Regional Health Information Organisation model (RHIO). I recently conducted a technical and business feasibility study with Paul Clark under a Managed Health Network seeding grant on such an approach for a common e-referral network covering pharmacy, radiology and pathology and hospital discharge. This used a common infrastructure, with a service model building on the IHE Cross Enterprise Document Share (XDS) infrastructure. The intention is to have the infrastructure owned and governed by the professions involved, purchased by the regional health provider group and delivered by the private sector. So if GPs are concerned that communication is happening in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way at their regional level - then asking the local Division of GPs to start a round table discussion with other health services may be a place to start. There are emerging models and systems for this. Regards Peter MacIsaac Please note: due to increasing problems with SPAM, I am using SPAM ARREST - http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4034505 - a relatively inexpensive service which extends my current email service and prevents automated SPAM attacks by checking with email senders that they are bonefide people needing to communicate with me. If you are not already in my address book and reply to this, you may receive a confirmation email asking you to respond. Once you answer, the email is on the way and will receive my attention. I am evaluating this service and would appreciate any feedback on it. I also have information on the corporate configuration of the service. Peter Macisaac MacIsaac Informatics Consulting in health informatics, HL7 and terminology [EMAIL PROTECTED] peter_macisaac (skype) 61 2 61611327 (landline) 61 411403462 (mobile/cell) www.macisaacinformatics.org -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Davey Sent: Friday, 6 April 2007 8:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Unencrypted e-mail from Austin Health in Victoria > Dear Dr Hosking, > > > Austin would have to invest substantial funds in software and > administration to extend encryption to admission and discharge notices. > With very little prospect of significant up-take by GP's, it's > impossible to justify this expense. So, for now, the hospital offers > only unencrypted email, fax or post as GP communication options. > > The evidence does not support this. Inner East Division, Central Bayside Division, Monash Division, Westgate Division, Mornington Division, Dandenong Division, Whitehorse Division are all actively supporting the implementation of PKI in their areas. They are also actively supporting the takeup of Argus with both their members and specialists etc. The Austin should take its head out of the sand. GPs are surrounding them with demand!!! > There's a wide range of encryption options available but the hospital is > reluctant to pursue any of these options until it sees where GP > preferences lie. We simply can't afford to introduce multiple solutions, > or solutions which are adopted by only a very small percentage of GP's. > And, presumably, GP's will favour a solution which is common to all the > hospitals and other service providers with whom they communicate > electronically. I'd appreciate your Committee's advice on which > encryption/decryption mechanism would most likely attract a significant > proportion of GP's. > > The Austin should just have a meeting with all the urban Divisions and ask them the mechanism that most of them want. Simple!!! ------------------------------- Ross Davey CEO ArgusConnect Pty Ltd Ph: 03 5335 2220 Mob: 0417 548608 Web: www.argusconnect.com.au ------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/732 - Release Date: 24/03/2007 4:36 PM -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/732 - Release Date: 24/03/2007 4:36 PM _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
