The project was initially funded in the 2010 Federal Budget to the tune of $466.7 million after years of the health industry and technology experts calling for development and national leadership in e-health and health identifier technology to better tie together patients’ records and achieve clinical outcomes. The project is overseen by the Department of Health and Ageing in coalition with the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA).
However, in July the Government revealed it had failed to meet it initial 500,000 target for adoption of the system, with only close to 400,000 Australians using the system at that point.
At the time, University of Western Australia software academic David Glance severely criticised the scheme. “… even if the government had met the target of 500,000, it would have been a meaningless gesture,” Glance wrote at the time. “The vast majority of those who have signed up, if they ever get around to logging in, will be greeted with an empty record.”
“Given the lack of active participation on the part of GPs, as well as the lack of public hospital systems to integrate with PCEHR, there’s little evidence to suggest that this is going to change any time soon … GPs still struggle to see the benefit of spending time curating shared records when the legal liabilities are still unknown but are potentially severe.”
And in August The Australian newspaper revealed that NEHTA had lost a number of senior executives, including clinical lead Mukesh Haikerwal.
Last week a statement was released on the issue by the lobby group United General Practice Australia. The group is composed of six major medical associations working together on primary healthcare issues, involving the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the Australian Medical Association, General Practice Registrars Australia, the Australian General Practice Network and the Rural Doctors Association of Australia.
At a recent United General Practice Australia (UGPA) meeting in Canberra, representatives of the GP sector unanimously agreed that the focus of the PCEHR needs to be redirected to clinical utility and standardisation to ensure seamless clinical adoption.
“Significant issues have been identified and currently there is no alignment between consumer registration and meaningful use through engagement of the clinical community and assurance of improvement of patient health outcomes,” the group’s statement last week noted.
“In August 2013 a number of key clinical leads resigned from National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA). This was amidst ongoing concerns and requests for NEHTA and the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) to review the PCEHR development cycle and re-establish meaningful clinical input.”
The group noted that since August, DoHA has become the PCEHR system operator and “opportunities for clinical engagement have been less clear”.
“UGPA is calling on Government to implement strategies to ensure the PCEHR is best structured to improve the health outcomes of all Australians,” the group’s statement noted. “The process should be profession led and: Include GP input at every level of the PCEHR development life cycle; including planning through to implementation; Ensure the system is clinically safe, usable and fit for purpose; Be supported by an acceptable, and robust legal and privacy framework; and ensure secure messaging interoperability is a critical dependency priority.”
UGPA further noted: “E-health and the PCEHR have the potential to transform Australia’s health system and provide superior, safer and more efficient healthcare to all Australian patients. UGPA members believe that this potential will only be fully realised if there is meaningful clinical engagement at a grassroots level. The Government has announced it will review implementation of the PCEHR. UGPA supports the review and look forward to contributing to the review and expect that the clinical voice and the concerns raised will be heard.”
opinion/analysis
This may sound a little extreme, but I believe the PCEHR project is a major problem child for the incoming Coalition Government. E-Health projects are never easy, and this one shows all the signs of going massively off the rails. The GP supergroup mentioned in this article is correct — the project urgently needs to be realigned to better meet the needs of doctors, who will be the primary participants interacting with the system.
---
Autor(en)/Author(s): Renai LeMay
Quelle/Source: Delimiter, 25.10.2013
Bitte besuchen Sie/Please visit:
