The AMA came out a week or so ago regarding the My Health Record. Here is the introduction and conclusions (the rest is on their web site at the link below):
Shared Electronic Medical Records - Revised 2016
AMA Position Statement on Shared Electronic Medical Records - Revised 2006. This Position Statement is part of the eHealth suite of position statements and should be read in conjunction with the following Position Statements: Electronic Prescription Transfer Systems (2009), Technology-based patient consultations (2013), and Medical practitioner responsibilities with electronic communication of clinical information (2013).
16 Jun 2016
------
Conclusion
The AMA looks forward to shared EMRs operating universally with optimum ease of use and seamless integration across health care providers. At this point there will be a universal, automatic and effective incentive for all clinicians to participate in shared EMRs.
The AMA supports a shared electronic medical record that:
- has universal coverage for the eligible population;
- contains reliable and relevant core clinical information about individuals that is not subject to access controls;
- aligns with clinical workflows and integrates with existing medical practice software;
- recognises and rewards additional activity required by clinicians providing information to the EMR
- has appropriate security measures in place to protect patient privacy, consistent with privacy of patient information in other forms;
- is governed by a single national entity which actively engages with medical and other stakeholders;
- is supported for implementation and operation across medical and other healthcare providers, starting with support and incentives for use by medical specialists; and
- is fully funded by governments and supported by appropriate incentives, education and training.
This Position Statement is part of the eHealth suite of position statements and should be read in conjunction with the following Position Statements:
- Electronic Prescription Transfer Systems (2009)
- Technology-based patient consultations (2013)
- Medical practitioner responsibilities with electronic communication of clinical information (2013)
The AMA Medical Practice Committee has principal carriage of the Position Statement on Shared Electronic Health Records.
Here is the link to the full document:
There is also a summary press release:
Access To Core Information Critical To e-Health Record Success
16 Jun 2016
Doctors and other health workers need to have access to core clinical information in electronic medical records if the Federal Government’s My Health Record system is to deliver an improvement in patient care, the AMA has said.
Releasing the AMA’s updated Position Statement, Shared Electronic Medical Records 2016, today, AMA President Dr Michael Gannon said that giving patients the ability to block or modify access to critical information such as medications, allergies, discharge summaries, diagnostic test results, blood pressure and advance care plans compromised the clinical usefulness of shared electronic medical records loaded on the My Health Record system.
“Doctors treating a patient need to be confident that they have access to all relevant information,” Dr Gannon said. “Shared electronic medical records have the potential to deliver huge benefits by giving health workers ready access to critical patient information when it is needed, reducing the chances of adverse or unwarranted treatments and improving the coordination of care.
“But, if patients are able to control access to core clinical information in their electronic medical record, doctors cannot rely on it.
“Giving patients such control, as the My Health Record system does, is a big handicap to the clinical usefulness of shared electronic medical records.”
The Federal Government launched My Health Record earlier this year to replace Labor’s troubled Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) system, and trials of its opt-out arrangements are due to commence in mid-July.
But the system, like the PCEHR, gives patients the power to control what goes on the health record, and who can view it.
The AMA said giving patients such control meant the My Health Record would never realise the full benefits of a national electronic health record system.
“All shared electronic health records must include core clinical information that is not subject to patient controls,” the AMA Position Statement said. “Certainty that shared electronic health records contain predictable core clinical information which is not affected, conditioned or qualified by the application of access controls, is critical to the achievement of the legislated objectives of the My Health Record.”
Like its predecessor, the My Health Record system has generated little interest among patients or doctors – in April just 798 health providers had uploaded a shared health summary to the system.
An AMA survey of 658 medical practices, undertaken last month, found GPs were reluctant to take part because of lack of confidence in the reliability of information it contained, combined with little patient demand and an absence of support for practices undertaking the task of creating shared health summaries.
Dr Gannon said the AMA encouraged individuals to take responsibility for their health and strongly supported the idea of a national shared health summary system, but it had to be the right one – one that supports clinical care.
“All health care workers involved in providing clinical care to a patient should have access to core clinical information,” he said. “Where specific information, other than core clinical information, is not made generally available, this should be made clear to treating doctors with a flag on the medical record.”
The AMA added that in ‘break glass’ emergency situations, implied consent must sometimes be assumed to allow access to the full medical record.
The Association said the system should also provide protections for doctors who acted in good faith but missed or were unable to locate critical data “because it is buried in a sea of electronic documents”.
Dr Gannon said shared electronic medical records should not be treated as a replacement for a patient’s medical record, and should not be treated as the single and definitive source of ‘truth’ regarding clinical information about a patient.
But he said it was an extra source of information, accessible at the point of care, that may otherwise have not been available.
The AMA Position Statement on Shared Electronic Medical Records 2016 can be found here https://ama.com.au/position-statement/shared-electronic-medical-records-revised-2016
Here is the link:
There was coverage on all this here:
Doctors want patient control over e-health records revoked
AMA demands minimum patient data set that can’t be altered.
By Paris Cowan
Jun 16 2016 3:59PM
Jun 16 2016 3:59PM
The Australian Medical Association has strengthened its calls for the reversal of full patient control over My Health Record data so clinicians can have more confidence in the under-patronised system.
AMA president Dr Michael Gannon said the ability of patients to control what is entered into their personal health record and who can access it is contributing to a lack of faith in the MyHR system amongst doctors, who have been sluggish adopting it as a result.
“If patients are able to control access to core clinical information in their electronic medical record, doctors cannot rely on it,” Gannon said, unveiling the AMA’s revised policy towards electronic health records today.
The medical lobby said as of April, only 798 Australian health providers had uploaded a shared health summary into the national My Health Record system since its inception.
The Department of Health confirmed earlier this year that just 300 medical practices nationally - out of more than 8500 - were regularly populating the system.
More here:
The bottom line of all this is that, as far as the AMA is concerned, there is a great deal of work to be done. The new Aust. Digital Health Authority now knows the issues the AMA believes need to be addressed!
Stand back and light the blue touch paper!
David.
Bagikan
The AMA Clearly Has A Different Vision For The My Health Record Than The Government. More Discussion Is Needed!
4/
5
Oleh
Unknown
