Draft delivers five-year plan for health IT

SUBSCRIBE
Newsletter & Subscriptions Computerworld is New Zealand's only specialised information systems fortnightly.
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
SIGN UP
Newsletter & Subscriptions
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Once a leader, New Zealand has faltered in deploying health IT, report says

The Health IT Board has released its draft plan for the use of IT in the New Zealand public health sector — and there's a whiff of the now defunct Health Management System Collaborative (HMSC) about it in its focus on clinical leadership.

Referring to the failure of IT to deliver on promises of person-centric health, the director of the board, Graeme Osborne, says the draft "recognises the critical role clinicians play in leading the development of integrated clinical pathways to improve the design and operation of health IT solutions".

As expected, a shared services approach for support systems features prominently, as does a consolidation of health IT into regional rather than local deployments.

New Zealand does not have the luxury of continuing with an organisation centric, fragmented approach to health IT investment, the draft plan says. While New Zealand was the envy of the world in adopting IT into the health system, investment in next generation systems has "reached a plateau" and the way forward is unclear.

"Early adoption and successful use of early generations of health information solutions may mean that it has taken longer for the sector to recognise the lackorf recent progress," Osborne writes.

The plan, which paints a picture of complexity, duplication and a lack of integration in the current health system, was developed after a Ministerial Review Group appointed by health minister Tony Ryall found last July that the sector could do better. It outlines a two phased approach to deliver a core set of health information to patients by 2014, a goal set by that review.

The deployment of new health IT systems is seen as a way of creating more sustainable health services as the cost of care increases. Health solutions are both a barrier and an enabler, says the report, and more time has to be taken to design, make explicit and implement better models of care.

Too many projects are underway without any reference to the overall system into account, it says, and there is need for a stronger sense of direction as resource scarcities emerge.

Phase 1, through to December 2011, is to consolidate, cooperate and "foundation" to provide systems to capture, transfer and provide access to patient information. Phase 2 will deliver shared care capabilities featuring a clinical data repository feeding historical patient information and delivering decision support.

A "stretch goal" of phase 1 is to ensure each region has a foundation set of systems and platforms.

The plan aims to draw together the "diverse strands" of health IT into a coherent programme of work for the next five years. This will involve engaging clinicians and health workers, open engagement with health IT vendors and the certification of health systems to ensure information can be shared securely, the draft says.

Such systems need to support the long-term planning framework for health service design. Investment will be focused on a "small number of key projects" across DHBs, primary care and the Ministry of Health.

The plan favours an incremental approach, saying this can lead to transformational change. Investments that support the delivery of national services will receive priority. Consolidation to fewer system "instances", or installations, into regional platforms is also a feature.

The plan is due to be complete by 30 June.
Comments
Reflections on the comments to date The plan supports a distributed environment of systems where each system is treated as a "black box" and only the interfaces or views into each system are strictly specified to allow interoperability. The Shared Care record supports the "summary of core patient information" as set out in the vision. The Plan therefore does not propose "a centrally designed system" or an "unwieldy one-size-fits-all system". Information arising from workplace screening can be loaded through the personalised health record, and thus become available to the patient's care providers via that interface. In order to provide screening functions ie early detection of a person's health problems, information will need to be amalgamated from a variety of trusted sources and processed to provide a risk analysis for the patient or GP to follow up.

CCD is a standard that the Midland Region has been working on.

One of the principles of the plan is that management/MoH information be a by-product of front line data collection.

And where is the money for the plan? If the shared care record can deliver a more intergrated health care model then patients will have better quality care at the right time saving hospital admissions and rework throughout the system.


Posted by A Knowledgeable Commentator at 21:00:34 on May 5, 2010

Flag abuse

A Health IT Plan? For comparision here is a link to a Health IT Plan (2009) for a state with a 3.4 Million population
http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/state_health_planning/hit/final_version_-_connecticut_state_health_it_plan.pdf.
While there are certainly differences in demographics, government and funding that need to be considered - health is health and technology is technology.
Posted by Anonymous at 11:20:26 on April 28, 2010

Flag abuse

A Health IT Plan? Hmm... US and UK have spent billions on a EHR and failed - where is the money for this NZ plan?
Posted by Asok D at 16:33:01 on April 28, 2010

Flag abuse

A Plan? Certainly an 'Interesting Vision'; some good stuff on Strategy; very little on Tactics - but definately not what I would call a Plan!
Posted by Anonymous at 10:55:18 on April 28, 2010

Flag abuse

Initial thoughts on proposal First of all, glad to hear on this proposal and happy to see that i migrated here in this period to see how this implementation coming up.

I had first quick read on proposal and wanted to read again to go through in details. before that thought to share few concerns in my mind.

1. Having two phases is good idea. however looks second phase is more challenging one referred as shared care. I would suggest to go for initial design period for both phases and then break the implementation into two phases.

2. Implementation of any new software to clinic may results issues as happened to many international EHR implementations. During my post graduate, what i proposed was doing part by part introducing system. for example initially data capture system at discharge/any place where it not break the main care activity. And then move to other areas.

3. As already many clinics/hospitals using some form of software to manage their activities. It will be good to come up with platform with this and deliver set of webservices/api to integrate with any software, which open up integration path for many existing applications use this new platform. And important thing is EHR model selection too.

4, Have seen many place in the proposal the word centralised.. Need to be sure that system distributed and managed across the country without any single point failure as this human life business and can not tolerate on any downtime :-)

I will come up with more suggestion once i go through proposal in details and if any possiblity on get involve on this, would be nice option for me.

Posted by Senthil at 22:59:41 on April 27, 2010

Flag abuse

Common Data > Common Code It is more important to have common, open, interchangeable data formats than it is for them all to use the same code. Standardize the data, and each outfit can use systems customized to suit its particular needs, instead of forcing everyone into using an all-singing-all-dancing, unwieldy one-size-fits-all system.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro at 16:00:48 on April 26, 2010

Flag abuse

Common Data > Common Code I agree. It's about the data, not the system. Not everyone has the same needs or offering, yet the data should be consistent and accurate and in an interchangable format. Some organisations may just offer primary health checks to employees, whilst other may provide more specialised functions such as disease management, etc. It is obvious that the latter will have a better view of the employee's health, and may be able to predict more accurately whether the employee will have heart failure within foreseeable future. It however does not mean that the former organisation's data is of no or little value when it comes to adding to the individual's health picture.
What IS important is that the data are captured, and shared in a secure environment to ensure that the health of the individual is maximised, to the benefit of both the individual as well as the national health syste, i.e. $$.
Posted by Dieter Stalmann, www.equeue.co.nz at 19:32:19 on April 26, 2010

Flag abuse

Strategy There is clearly a need for sanity in getting consistent systems across the sector, but some quick gains could be made by reviewing/validating the need for the mountain of data required to be collected and submitted to the MOH for funding verification. This could be streamline significantly the systems requirements for health providers. There needs to be some checks but the detail required in some areas is questionable and is a massive overhead on every health transaction and non-clinical datamanagement for providers. The MOH is not able to cope with the massive volume of data submitted, and the vlue of this effort should be revisited to see if any value is actually gained from the work. Smaller more focussed requirements in this area whou benefit all parties.
Posted by KM at 12:12:29 on April 26, 2010

Flag abuse

Pro-active vs Reactive Point taken. But the point that I was trying to make is that the data obtained from clinics, hospitals and doctors do not constitute a complete picture of the country, because the information paints the picture of ill patients, patients that are already seeking help for an existing problem, which is costing the healthcare system money.
On the other hand, there is a lot of health-related infomation that can be obtained at organisational level that could indicate possible future problems, which do not yet cost the taxpayer anything, and could cost much less to manage if caught in early stages.
Posted by Dieter Stalmann, www.equeue.co.nz at 16:26:27 on April 25, 2010

Flag abuse

CCD All that is required is a central repository to hold patient information as CCD documents, and to install CCD reading software at every clinic in the nation to pull those documents into.

This central data repository is key to pulling all the DHB's together. into one network.
Posted by Anonymous at 15:34:12 on April 23, 2010

Flag abuse

computerworld
Computerworld NZ has now reached LinkedIn! Join to expand your networks and meet others interested in information systems.