On 19/01/2017 10:30 AM, David wrote: > On Wednesday 18 January 2017 16:10:55 Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: >> Here's his definition of Digital Health >> >> "Digital Health is a disruptive and transformational approach to the >> delivery of healthcare, with a focus on engaging and empowering patients, >> activating caregiver networks and understanding that patients are >> increasingly behaving as consumers of healthcare. Digital Health provides us >> with a toolbox of technologies and techniques that support the development >> of new, innovative patient and caregiver-centred models of care, driving >> improved engagement, accessibility, quality, safety, efficiency and >> sustainability into all corners of the health system." > The article seems to me a fine example of its kind: so much consultant-speak, > so little meaning. > > What on earth is meant by "patients are increasingly behaving as consumers of > healthcare"
Dr Henry Marsh, "one of Britain's leading brain surgeons", in an interview with the BBC world service said a couple of interesting things: a) Patients are not consumers; It's not like going into a shop and buying something. b) The important thing is decision making. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03chc23 I'd add that good decision making means good, reliable data. the government's My Health Record isn't. And the government tells us so: "Clinical information you find within your patient’s My Health Record should be interpreted in much the same way as other sources of health information. It is safest to assume the information in a patient’s My Health Record is not a complete record of a patient’s clinical history, so information should be verified from other sources and ideally, with the patient." In other words it is unreliable and potentially unsafe. And if the government thinks that the patient can verify things like diagnoses, treatment plans etc, then they are even more naive than I thought. This admission is well hidden in the FAQ for Healthcare providers under "How can I be sure information in My Health Record is up to date?" https://myhealthrecord.gov.au/internet/mhr/publishing.nsf/Content/healthcare-providers-faqs Talk about transparency and trust: well this isn't it. > Stand-out omissions in the article are the lack of even a one-paragraph > estimate of cost-benefit, and a convincing example of the end-to-end process > from patient to doctor. I'd go further. There is no justification/demonstration of how improved health outcomes will be achieved. There is no estimate of the full costs (not just the cost of the technology but the cost of ownership) There is no assessment of the risks either in healthcare or in loss of privacy. An observation: Health IT usually increases costs (think PET/CT/MRI scans). That may increase effectiveness of healthcare but reduce costs? I've seen no evidence and I've asked people who should know. > It's all arm-waving, long-lunch stuff. Agree Bernard -- Regards brd Bernard Robertson-Dunn Sydney Australia email: [email protected] web: www.drbrd.com web: www.problemsfirst.com Blog: www.problemsfirst.com/blog _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
