This report appeared a little while ago:
Reality check - reliable national data from general practice electronic health records
Deeble Institute Issues Brief No. 18
14 July 2016
Source:
Here is the link:
Here is the Executive Summary:
“Since 1998, data about general practice activity in Australia has been collected, analysed and disseminated through the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program. BEACH has provided valuable information about how general practice has changed over time, the impact of policy on practice and general practitioner (GP) professional development, and is the most reliable national source of data on GP activity. However, its cross-sectional design precludes comparison of outcomes of different approaches to care.
It is estimated that 96% of GPs currently use computers for clinical purposes. However, some GPs only use Electronic Health Records (EHR) for part of their clinical work, such as prescribing or ordering pathology tests. Others are paperless and only use EHRs, but even in these circumstances the EHRs themselves lack the structure to reliably link management actions to a patient problem. There are at least eight EHRs used in general practice, each developed independently and structured differently.
In short, there are no nationally agreed and implemented standards for EHRs in Australia, in three areas:
· EHR structure (including linkages)
· data element names and definitions
· use of clinical terminology and classifications.
Therefore it is not possible to reliably export standardised data from general practice EHRs of a sufficient quality to be used for clinical and research purposes.
With current policy focuses on data linkage, integration of care, improved use of the My Health Record (formerly the PCEHR) and attempts to use EHR data for research, the need for a reliable source of data from general practice EHRs has never been higher. Unfortunately there is no ‘quick fix’ solution, but the issues can be addressed with a targeted work program to address the three underlying problem areas.
This Issues Brief describes four steps required to produce high quality data from general practice EHRs:
1. A defined EHR data model that links related data elements
2. Consistent data element labels and definitions across EHRs
3. Use of standardised clinical terminology and classifications
4. Accreditation of GP electronic health records.
This recommended program of work requires a national, cohesive approach, involving stakeholders from government, professional organisations, the EHR software industry and organisations that use data from general practice.”
All of this becomes even more important given the GP Research Infrastructure has recently been defunded by the Commonwealth government, which is going to greatly degrade our knowledge of what is going on in General Practice (GP) over time.
The report comes from a research perspective so does not emphasise additional points I would make about ensuring the usability and robustness of compliant systems so they are well used by GP.
The obvious issue here is that GP Systems are provided and supported by (often small) vendors who may be hesitant to invest in work that leads to less differentiation and market distinction for their product.
We all agree that for both interoperability and research all these steps are needed. Just how this can be achieved will be a major challenge for ADHA!
David.
Bagikan
Here Is Something The ADHA Should Start Working To Address As Soon As Possible. It Will Be A Long Job.
4/
5
Oleh
Unknown
