This is the initial part of the post - read more by clicking on the title of the article. David.
Feb 07, 12 09:00PM
|
0 comments
Following on from the Public Hearing on Monday I was left considering questions (and the answers to them) that the Senate Committee needs to be clear on before finalising a concluded report on the planned legislation and the other matters being considered.
Before discussing a possible list of questions I have to say that I fear there are two major barriers to the Committee being able to really provide a useful report.
The first is that the Committee (apparently) lacks expert and independent technical / health advisor (or advisors) that it can work with to really test the veracity and implications of what it has been told. There are a range of quite complex issues that are needing to be assessed before the Committee can really reach a view as to what should happen next.
While not wishing to in any way understate the skills of the Committee’s Secretariat many of the issues to be addressed are pretty technical and requiring very specific expertise to address. It is also not clear just...
This is the initial part of the post - read more by clicking on the title of the article. David.
This is the initial part of the post - read more by clicking on the title of the article. David.
Comments
To add a comment to the original post, click here.
You must be signed in to post a comment.
Sign in nowIMHO, it all comes down to one question:
Is there certainty, agreement and stability regarding what e-Health is and how it is to be delivered?
I suggest that the submissions demonstrate that the answer is: No.
In which case, spending money on implementing any sort of system is almost certainly a bad thing.
I'd also make the observation that getting out of a problem situation takes a higher skill level than getting into it. To put it another way, those who got into this mess are not the ones who can get out.
THank you for your blog but I think you have missed the elephant in the room on this one. The rule is "first do no harm" and it seemed that some of the submissions were flagging serious concerns about patient safety (through potential mis- identification, scope, haste, failure to communicate lessons learned,)yet you do not mention this. Surely this is the number one issue? Patient safety must come first?
David.