NACCHO Aboriginal Health ” Opt out ” My Health Records News : Why aren’t more people using the My Health Record?

 

 ” With a My Health Record, both a patient and their healthcare professional can gain immediate access to important health information on-line.

This can improve co-ordinated care outcomes, reduce duplication and provide vital information in emergency situations.

“It also enables us, as a consumer, to become more active in managing your health and provide links between the multiple services many of us may need through our lives.”

                          MY HEALTH RECORD WEBSITE

 HISTORY OF E-Health/My Health Record from NACCHO

” COAG Health ministers decided on Friday 24 March that the My Health Rec­ord system would be opt-out, making electronic medical records compulsory for all Australians unless they said otherwise, despite trials of that model having yet to report.

Those trials concluded this year, with only 1.9 per cent of individuals deciding to opt-out — so proving the success of this approach “

Update March 24 2017

 ” The opt-out approach, which was first proposed in a 2013 Department of Health review, has been trialled in both the Nepean Blue Mountains and Northern Queensland since June last year.

Around 1 million new My Health Records were automatically created for all people living in the areas, unless they responded in the negative.

Nationally the number of people signed up to My Health Record is 4.6m, according to figures shared today by the Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA).”

 ” The Australian Medical Association has called on the government to tackle barriers to the use of ehealth and telemedicine in rural and regional Australia.

In a position paper released earlier this year the AMA argued that “the utilisation of telehealth and telemedicine in rural and remote Australia remains patchy and is not used to full potential, because of no, or inadequate internet access”.

Internet connections in rural areas are often expensive, slow and have relatively small download allowances.”

Download the AMA Position paper

Better access to high speed broadband PS_Final_0

Read moreEhealth: AMA call for bush broadband boost

The AMA Position Statement on Shared Electronic Medical Records 2016 can be found here

Why aren’t more people using the My Health Record?

Published in The Conversation 24 March

 

The My Health Record is an online summary of personal health information that patients can share with health providers. As many as one in five Australians have a My Health Record.

But recent statistics show the My Health Record is only being used by a small percentage of consumers, and even then not to its fullest uses. So how can we get a greater return on the estimated A$1.2 billion taxpayer dollars invested in the system?

1. More health professionals need to add information

To date, approved health-care providers in the system have uploaded only about 1.7 million clinical documents, for the 4.6 million Australians who have a My Health Record. Just over one third of these clinical documents are Shared Health Summaries – listing health conditions, allergies, medications, and immunisations.

Information about health-care recipients is also added to the My Health Record from other sources – including Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, along with pharmacy medications information and hospital discharge summaries. Some health-care providers might be willing to share clinical documents, but hold concerns about privacy and may be unsure how sharing the information will improve patient care.

The shared health information in the My Health Record could help many patients recall vital health information. It could be particularly useful for those who struggle with medication management, have multiple health conditions, enter hospital frequently, or have multiple health providers.

The main purpose of the My Health Record is to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of patient care. Reducing medical errors related to the poor exchange of health information between patients and their health providers, or across multiple health providers, is a high priority.

We need more health information added into the system before it’s going to be useful for more people in supporting their health-care decisions. Patients prompting their GP or practice nurse to upload a Shared Health Summary at each visit could increase use of the system, which is designed to improve patient control over their health information.

2. We need to add more information ourselves

Many consumers with a My Health Record have only had one since June 2016 through a trial of “opt-out” sites. Lacking experience or guidance in using the My Health Record, they will not know what they can upload or why, or how to use the technology.

Currently, there are only about 80,000 “Consumer Entered Health Summaries” in the My Health Record. These summaries contain emergency contact details and very brief information on allergies and medications. There are also about 35,000 “Consumer Entered Health Notes” – similar to a health journal or diary.

Fewer than 900 people have uploaded a copy of their Advance Care Directive – a critically important document outlining a person’s wishes for future medical treatment – into the My Health Record. As it is the only national online repository for Advance Care Directives that can be accessed anywhere, more legal information websites need to prompt people to store their Advance Care Directive in the My Health Record.

Not knowing how to use computers, navigate the My Health Record, or save and upload documents will prevent many people from taking advantage of the system.

3. More people need to know how to use it

Currently, the My Health Record places high demands on reading and e-health literacy, making it difficult for many people to use. This could be a barrier for a large number of people.

People with low health literacy, people who lack engagement with digital health, people who lack access to a computer and the internet, and people with limited English literacy could struggle with these online records.

Information about the My Health Record needs to be inclusive, easier to read, and translated into many languages – and use pictures and videos – to enable everyone to use the system.

4. The people who need it most need support to use it

As many as one in five Australians have a disability. Anyone with a condition that affects their ability to explain their health history to others might need help to use the My Health Record. This includes people with dementia, stroke, traumatic brain injury, intellectual or developmental disability, autism spectrum disorder, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease, and people with a wide range of social, physical, cognitive, or sensory impairments affecting communication.

People with communication difficulties have three times the risk of preventable harmful adverse events in hospital, relating to their problems communicating their needs to health providers. The My Health Record might be particularly helpful for this group, who are at risk of exclusion because of their communication impairments and low levels of digital inclusion.

While the My Health Record is set up for use by all Australians, people with communication difficulties and their families may need additional information, funding, and other supports to enable their participation. They might also need help to identify who would be their Nominated or Authorised Representative in the system.

Future enhancements of the My Health Record need to take into account the views and experiences of people with multiple health conditions who are engaging with the My Health Record. Gathering their stories of experience could lead to a greater understanding of the types of support needed for more people to use and benefit from this important e-health initiative.

NACCHO Health News : Doctor’s peak bodies speak up about problems with My Health Records

AMA Ley PM

” The Federal Government will drive better patient outcomes for Australians living complex chronic illness as part of its Healthier Medicare reform package, by improving digital heath records and data around health outcomes that will make it easier to co-ordinate their care and measure their progress. “

The Hon. Sussan Ley Minister for Health Press release

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

Doctors treating a patient need to be confident that they have access to all relevant information, 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.

AMA President Dr Michael Gannon

Pictured above meeting with the Health Minister and Prime Minister in Perth last week

“There is no question that individuals should have access to their own healthcare data but he believes that basic things need fixing first, such as making it easier for GPs to refer patients.

He says the technology was built by software vendors and NEHTA but has been gathering dust over the last few years and there is still no one secure, integrated system of referring people electronically.

“You start electronically, you finish electronically and everything in between is a mish-mash. You change the business model and then it’s really easy to send data to a national repository.”

Dr Pinskier, who chairs the RACGPs expert committee on e-health and practice systems. See full interview below

The AMA Position Statement on Shared Electronic Medical Records 2016 can be found here

Releasing the AMA’s updated Position Statement, Shared Electronic Medical Records 2016, 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.

“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.

My Health Record: Medics speak up

As the new trials of the My Health Record roll out in Queensland, NSW, WA and Victoria, Government News asks clinicians what might help – or hinder – the progress of the revamped national individual electronic health record.

A bit of history

The idea of a national individual electronic health record has been around for decades, routinely popping up in report recommendations from government health agencies.

It was an idea former Prime Minister John Howard helped spread and one the National Electronic Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) was set up to drive in 2005.

Labour introduced the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) in 2012 after two years of GP trials.

But from its inception, the electronic health record has been dogged with problems and fraught with complexities and it still has not had the uptake needed to fulfil the vision of a concise patient record available in an emergency.

Academic Dr Helen Cripps compared the Australian e-health experience to that of Slovenia in her 2011 research paper The Implementation of electronic health records: a two country comparison, and found Australia was making much slower progress.

In it, she lists a whole host of reasons for Australia’s sluggish progress in e-health: the country’s complex health care system, with state and federal involvement and a large private health sector; uneven adoption by clinicians;  problems securely sharing data electronically between GPs and other clinicians; the proliferation of different electronic health record formats and systems; fears about data protection and patient privacy; a lack of national direction; the cost of infrastructure, maintenance and training and a disconnect between government-led implementation and software vendors.

The new Australian Digital Health Agency opened its doors on July 1, and appointed ts first CEO UK digital whizz Tim Kelsey. It is a clear sign that e-health is seriously back on the government’s agenda but what about the clinicians the government is relying on to make the record valuable?

Both Dr Nathan Pinskier, Chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and Dr Tony Bartone, Vice President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), have weathered the vicissitudes of the electronic health record over the years.

They spoke to Government News about what pitfalls should be avoided this time around and where the road to success lies.

Dr Pinskier, who chairs the RACGPs expert committee on e-health and practice systems, says there is no question that individuals should have access to their own healthcare data but he believes that basic things need fixing first, such as making it easier for GPs to refer patients.

At the moment, when doctors want to refer patients, for example to specialists, physios and hospitals, they must wrestle with a number of different electronic systems (including Argus, HealthLink and MEDrefer), as well as using fax machines, scanners, emails and letters.

He says the technology was built by software vendors and NEHTA but has been gathering dust over the last few years and there is still no one secure, integrated system of referring people electronically.

“You start electronically, you finish electronically and everything in between is a mish-mash. You change the business model and then it’s really easy to send data to a national repository.”

Prescription for change  

Data quality

Both clinicians say that the value of My Health Record will not be fully realised until there is decent data quality and coverage so that health providers can feel confident using the information.

Dr Pinskier says there are currently eight sources of data within the My Health Record and patients can also add their own data. Instead, he suggests homing in on the most vital pieces of information: bad reactions to medicines, current medications and allergies.

He recalls a hospital doctor searching through a jumble of sometimes conflicting records to find out what medication an out-of-town patient was on. The doctor eventually gave up and phoned the patient’s pharmacist.

“What’s the value if you have all these lists for providers to spend hours trawling through the records?” he asks.

Dr Pinskier says it is worth looking at alternatives, citing international examples such as Boston Open Notes, where local records of healthcare providers are made available to consumers. The patient sees exactly what the healthcare provider sees, which can also help reinforce medical advice, for example about how to take medication.

He says Scotland’s Emergency Care Summary is a good example of how local records work, calling it “simple, effective and functional.” The summary lists essential details such as a person’s name, age and GP and their medications, allergies and bad reactions to medicines, extracting the information from GP records.

“There is one source of truth, which is highly accurate and repeatedly uploaded to a national system. That is certainly regarded as a preferred model,” Dr Pinskier says.

Dr Bartone, Vice President of the nation’s peak body for GPs, agrees that the success of the individual electronic health record relies on good data and not just from GPs, who he says have always been “ahead of the curve” and early adopters of e-health.

The record also relies on getting good information from allied health providers, pharmacies and hospitals, amongst others, in order to get a useful medical summary. This could include pathology results, diagnostic imaging, immunisation, Medicare and Pharmaceutical benefit claims, organ donation, medication and advanced care directives.

He says records are not expected to be as detailed as those held by GPs, but a reliable, secure and useful summary.

“All of these things go into making up the record but at the moment we have got a situation where some hospitals’ IT platforms won’t allow them to upload information. For example, in Victoria whereas some hospitals were able to upload data right now,” Dr Bartone says.

“It’s about an emergency situation where the patient is unknown to the doctor who needs to get some information on them in a hurry. It’s never going to replace the GPs file … it’s not designed to be that.

“You don’t need all these details. Other providers need a snapshot of medications, tests and conditions; then they will move on.”

A Department of Health spokesperson said that the quality of information uploaded to the My Health Record system reflected the quality of the records kept in local clinical information systems.

“It is the responsibility of healthcare providers and is part of their professional standards that they keep accurate and up-to-date records about their patients,” said the spokesperson. “It is anticipated that records which are accessible by both patients and other healthcare providers treating that patient will see an improved quality over time.”

Getting clinicians on board

Dr Bartone believes the work needs to be clinically-led and the scheme’s practical implications for clinicians, such as cost and increased workload, properly thought through and addressed.

He says there has been a lack of engagement with clinicians, caused by “too many people with various agendas pushing different methodologies and ideas” holding the process back so that it failed to deliver enough value to consumers.

Although medics were consulted initially under the PCEHR, Dr Bartone believes this fell by the wayside when the project was delivered, with little thought to how it would actually work on the ground.

“They expected patients to be registered by doctors in their waiting rooms. That’s a cumbersome and difficult process and these are busy places,” he says.

“There was no awareness that this would impose a workload, red tape and duplication. There was lots of money but it wasn’t going to the right people.”

The results so far have been questionable in terms of outcomes and performance.

“The need to have a robust and reliable individual electronic health record is without question,” Dr Bartone says. “The issues thus far have been in terms of scope and implementation: how and who is controlling it and how it would be rolled out.”

But he says offering GPs payments to register a certain number of patients (which has been announced as policy) and making the scheme opt-out for patients, rather than opt-in (which has not, as yet), were both be good ideas.

The My Health Record trials have been a mixture of opt-in and opt-out, to test the public’s response. While the Nepean and Queensland trials were opt-out, two earlier trials in Western Australia and Ballarat, Victoria were opt-in.

Dr Bartone says it is imperative that the back-end of the system is easy for doctors to navigate and does not involve duplication of effort – which he says had only recent been possible through new software – so it does not impose an additional burden on doctors.

“There’s been lots of good will invested over the last four or five years. That will run thin if there are any further problems,” he says.

Another discouragement for doctors to use My Health Record has been anxiety that they may be prosecuted under privacy legislation for accessing or sharing information, a fear which Dr Bartone says resulted in disillusionment, even for rusted-on fans of electronic health records.

Government News put these concerns to the federal Department of Health.

A departmental spokesperson said the My Health Records Act 2012 specifically authorised the collection, use and disclosure of health information in the My Health Record so that there would be no breach of the Privacy Act 1988.

“This means that treating healthcare providers can access and use an individual’s My Health Record for healthcare purposes,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the penalties for unauthorised collection, use or disclosure of data – which can be up to $540,000 or two years’ imprisonment – did not apply to accidental misuse. Patients are also able to restrict or remove documents in their My Health Record.

“For example, if a healthcare provider inadvertently or accidentally accesses an individual’s My Health Record – they are not liable for a civil or criminal penalty,” said the spokesperson.

Healthcare providers can use their judgement about what they upload onto an individual’s My Health Record.  There is nothing in the My Health Records Act 2012 that requires them to upload if they choose not to.

Dr Pinskier says that some of the difficulty getting a national e-health record off the ground stems from earlier efforts to appease everybody, patients and multiple healthcare providers, ending in an extremely complex system.

The national individual electronic health record became a hybrid of a clinical and consumer record, without quite meeting the requirements of either, he says.

“I think we need to go back to basics and ask what we want to achieve – what’s its core purpose?

“We are not addressing the questions of utility and functionality. There is still a really good opportunity to see what is it we’re trying to achieve, how best to achieve it and the steps needed to do it.”

He is emphatic about how this should be done.

“This is not a technological questions, it needs to be clinically led,” Dr Pinskier says. “We need to start again but we need the key clinical stakeholders involved and the clinical community needs to be listened to.”

My Health Record trials

Opt-in trials began in July in Ballarat, Vic and Western Australia. The Ballarat Health Service help patients register when they are admitted to hospital and their discharge summaries are uploaded to My Health Record.

In Western Australia, the trial involves helping chronically-ill patients register at selected practices and modifying chronic disease management software. This will give treating healthcare providers, including specialists and allied health professionals, access to patients’ My Health Records using connected software.

Opt-out trials are underway in the Nepean Blue Mountains area and Northern Queensland.

The Department of Health says the trials are being conducted to gauge consumer reaction to an opt-out system of participation, as well as looking at healthcare provider use and how much clinical information is uploaded to the My Health Record when most patients have a My Health Record.

Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley announced last month that the number of My Health Records in Australia had surpassed four million, with an average of 2,200 new registrations every day in the preceding four weeks.

“With changes to the General Practice Incentive, healthcare providers are increasingly contributing and viewing on-line health information about their patients,” Ley said. “We are now seeing one upload of clinical health information from a healthcare provider every 21 seconds.”

Ley says that every day, one in five GPs saw a patient for whom they have little or no information but My Health Record would change that.

“This may be a Medicare claim or pharmacy prescription, or clinical information uploaded by other healthcare providers such as a specialist, hospital and pharmacy,” Ms Ley says.

“With a My Health Record, both a patient and their healthcare professional can gain immediate access to important health information on-line.

“This can improve co-ordinated care outcomes, reduce duplication and provide vital information in emergency situations.

Ley says My Health Record puts the power in the hands of health consumers to decide who they shared their health information with.

Patients can register through MyGov for a My Health Record online and then link the two.

NACCHO Aboriginal Health : Growing at one every 38 seconds the My Health Record hits 4 million!

MHR

With a My Health Record, both a patient and their healthcare professional can gain immediate access to important health information on-line.

This can improve co-ordinated care outcomes, reduce duplication and provide vital information in emergency situations.

“It also enables us, as a consumer, to become more active in managing your health and provide links between the multiple services many of us may need through our lives.”

Minister for Health Sussan Ley today announced the number of people with a My Health Record has surpassed 4 million, or around 17 per cent of all Australians.

                          MY HEALTH RECORD WEBSITE

“With a My Health Record, both a patient and their healthcare professional can gain immediate access to important health information on-line,” Ms Ley said.

   HISTORY OF E-Health/My Health Record from NACCHO

Ms Ley said that following the recent re-launch of the My Health Record there has been a steady increase in registrations.

“In the past four weeks alone, there has been an average of 2,200 new registrations every day, or one new My Health Record created every 38 seconds,” she said.

“With changes to the General Practice incentive, healthcare providers are increasingly contributing and viewing on-line health information about their patients. We are now seeing one upload of clinical health information from a healthcare provider every 21 seconds.”

Ms Ley said every day one in five GPs will see a patient for whom they have little or no information at all. With the My Health Record, they will increasingly have access to at least some information about a patient.

My Health Record

 

“This may be a Medicare claim or pharmacy prescription, or clinical information uploaded by other healthcare providers such as a specialist, hospital and pharmacy.

A My Health Record puts the power in the hands of health consumers to decide with whom they share their health information,” Ms Ley said.

 

 

NACCHO #HealthElection16 : AMA calls to suspend e-health changes until system fixed

Health

The AMA is calling for a moratorium on changes that will penalise general practices thousands of dollars if they do not upload patient health summaries to the My Health Record system, with less than a quarter of practices indicating they will be able to comply with new rules introduced earlier this year to the Practice Incentives Program (PIP).

Read 22 NACCHO Articles about E-Health

The AMA has written to Health Minister Sussan Ley and Shadow Health Minister Catherine King urging them to commit to a suspension of rules that came into effect last month, under which practices that fail to upload shared health summaries for at least 0.5 per cent of their standardised whole patient equivalent each quarter are not eligible for payment under the newly-branded PIP Digital Health Incentive.

An AMA survey of medical practices found that just 24 per cent considered themselves able to comply with the requirement, while 39.5 per cent said they were unable to, and 36 per cent were unsure. Those that could not comply estimated it would cost them, on average, $23,400 a year in lost PIP incentive payments.

AMA President, Dr Michael Gannon, said the rule was grossly unfair and premature because the My Health Record system was still a work in progress and had substantial flaws that compromised its clinical usefulness.

“The AMA has strongly backed the introduction of a national e-health record because of the real benefits it could provide for patient care,” Dr Gannon said.

“But the My Health Record system is plagued with shortcomings that need to be fixed before the Government tries to foist it on patients and practices.”

Of those practices unable to meet the new eligibility requirement, around a third estimated it would cost them up to $15,000 a year in lost incentives, 29 per cent reported it would cost them up to $30,000 a year, almost 20 per cent forecast an annual loss of up to $45,000 and 12 per cent put the annual cost at up to $60,000.

Dr Gannon said this amounted to a significant financial blow to practices already struggling under the burden of the Medicare rebate freeze.

“The extension of the rebate freeze has already pushed many practices to the financial brink, and the last thing they need is to have thousands more ripped away from them because of a flawed process to introduce a national e-health record system,” he said. “The Health Department should call a halt to the process until its gets the My Health Record system sorted out.”

The Health Department has pushed ahead with the new eligibility requirements even though trials of My Health Record’s opt-out arrangements are not due to commence until mid-July, and numerous issues affecting the extent to which doctors can rely on the record are yet to be resolved.

“The Government and Opposition should commit to holding off until the trials have been run and the system’s flaws have been addressed,” Dr Gannon said.

The AMA told the Department last year that fundamental issues with the design of the My Health Record system, including incomplete and hidden information and a lack of take-up among consumers, had to be fully resolved before any moves were made to link its use to PIP payments.

The reluctance of patients and the medical profession to use the system has been underlined by official figures showing by April just 798 health providers had uploaded a shared health summary.

The AMA survey, which was conducted last month and involved 658 practices across the country, reinforces the consistent advice that the AMA has provided to the Department and the Government.

Those practices that said that they would not be able to comply with the new rules had multiple concerns about the technology, including:

  • that My Health Record was not a reliable source of clinical information for GPs (65.1 per cent);
  • there was no demand from patients (66.7 per cent);
  • there was no financial support for the extra work involved in preparing and uploading shared health summaries (67.5 per cent);
  • there were unresolved issues regarding the security of the My Health Record system (61.5 per cent); and
  • other health providers are not using the My Health Record and GPs see little value in using it (61.3 per cent).

Dr Gannon said the proposed moratorium should, at the very least, extend to include the conclusion of the opt-out trials, so that the lessons learned during that process could be applied.

He warned that rushing ahead with the My Health Record and linking it to PIP incentives risked undermining the support of the medical profession.

“Adopting the proposed moratorium is essential,” Dr Gannon said. “Otherwise, the Department may undermine support for My Health Record within general practice and do long-term damage to the goodwill of GPs, which is essential if a national e-health system is to be successfully rolled out.”

NACCHO Health News Alert : Improving privacy in Australia’s general practices a joint effort

images

“Privacy is fundamental to the trusted relationship between a doctor and a patient and practices go to great lengths to protect this. The assessment report shows that some may need more guidance on how to develop transparent and robust privacy policies. The AMA is actively helping them with this.”

Chair of the AMA Council of General Practice, Dr Brian Morton

Acting Australian Information Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has today welcomed a series of actions by Australia’s peak medical groups to improve privacy practices at Australia’s GP clinics.

“A recent assessment of GP practices by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) suggests that many practices could use more practical support to improve or establish privacy policies,” said the Commissioner.

“The OAIC appreciates that many GP practices are small to medium sized businesses and so practical, industry-relevant support is an effective way to improve privacy outcomes for practices and patients.”

“So I welcome the fact that the Australian Medical Association (AMA), the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) and the Australian Association of Practice Management (AAPM) have come together with the OAIC to provide practical support to their members to deliver open and transparent privacy policies within their practices.”

The OAIC regulates Australia’s Privacy Act1988 and last year conducted an assessment of the privacy policies of 40 GP practices from across Australia. When the assessments revealed room for improvement, medical peak bodies were approached to help deliver training and practical solutions to assist GP practices.

Chair of the AMA Council of General Practice, Dr Brian Morton, said that “privacy is fundamental to the trusted relationship between a doctor and a patient and practices go to great lengths to protect this. The assessment report shows that some may need more guidance on how to develop transparent and robust privacy policies. The AMA is actively helping them with this.”

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners President, Dr Frank R Jones, said the report was a timely reminder for general practices to review their privacy policies. “The RACGP provides useful resources to general practices to make adherence to the rules straightforward and our goal is to improve the practical help and support we already provide.”

Danny Haydon, President of AAPM, confirmed that Practice Managers have a key role in ensuring their practice has an easily accessible privacy policy in place and that AAPM assists practice managers to implement this through a range of resources.

ACRRM President Professor Lucie Walters said, “rural and remote doctors are keenly aware of the importance of privacy issues, especially given the circumstances of rural medical practice. ACRRM will be doing as much as possible to support its members to ensure that both the documentation and implementation of practice privacy policies are consistent with the requirements of the Privacy Act”.

Commissioner Pilgrim emphasised that a collaborative approach to create strong privacy governance in Australian businesses was always the OAIC’s preferred approach.

“The OAIC works constructively with businesses and the wider community to build an integrated approach to privacy compliance,” said the Commissioner.

“Thanks to the efforts of these peak bodies and the OAIC’s team, that preferred approach will lead to improved privacy management for Australian GPs and their patients.”

About the report

The report focused on assessing the privacy policies of 40 General Practice Clinics against Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 1 under the Privacy Act 1988. APP1 has a focus on open and transparent management of personal information.

The purpose of the assessment was to assist GP clinics to improve or enhance their existing privacy policy, taking into account the requirements under the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act).The assessment aimed to enhance the GP clinics’ understanding of privacy and their obligations under the Privacy Act.

It examined the content, layout and availability of the privacy policy but did not consider how the information handling procedures set out in the privacy policy were implemented in practice. This report does not make conclusions about broader privacy practices of GP clinics beyond the scope described above.

The General Practice Clinics APP 1 Privacy Policy assessment report was conducted under Section 33C of the Privacy Act 1988.

To access the report, please visit https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/assessments/general-practice-clinics-app-1-privacy-policy-assessment.

About the OAIC

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has a range of regulatory responsibilities and powers under the Privacy Act 1988 and other legislation including the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

The OAIC is headed by the Acting Australian Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is supported by the Assistant Commissioner, Regulation & Strategy and the Assistant Commissioner, Dispute Resolution, and OAIC staff.

For further information about the OAIC, please visit www.oaic.gov.au or follow @OAICgov.

AMA WORKING WITH GENERAL PRACTICE TO ENSURE PATIENT PRIVACY

The AMA acknowledges the release of the privacy assessment report undertaken by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which examined the privacy policies of 40 general practices across Australia.

Chair of the AMA Council of General Practice (AMACGP), Dr Brian Morton, who runs a busy suburban general practice in Sydney, said today that patient privacy is a priority for every GP and every general practice.

Dr Morton said that the OAIC report showed that some general practices needed to do more to ensure that they had a privacy policy that was fully compliant with the Australian Privacy Principles (APP). The report does not suggest that patient privacy had been in any way compromised by any of the practices.

“Privacy law is a very complex area and this report, which looked at a small sample of practices, is an important reminder that general practices should review and update their privacy policies on a regular basis,” Dr Morton said.

The OAIC report provides some useful guidance for GPs, highlighting how practices could improve their privacy policies, including:

  •  how easily policies could be read and comprehended;
  •  the provision of appropriate contact information, and provisions in the event an individual wanted to access or correct information held about them, or make a complaint;
  •  identifying the kinds of personal information collected and held, as well as why and how it is collected and held;
  •  describing the reasonable steps the practice took to protect patient information, and how a privacy complaint is dealt with; and
  •  how health information (including Individual Health Identifiers and prescribed medicines) is collected, used, or disclosed through the MyHealth Record system and the Electronic Transfer of Prescriptions (eTP) service.

Dr Morton said that patient privacy is fundamental to the trust relationship between doctors and patients, and practices go to great lengths to ensure the privacy of their patients’ records.

“General practices are serious about protecting patient privacy, but the report sends a clear signal that we can do better, including with getting all the paperwork right,” Dr Morton said.

“The AMA has already acted upon the concerns of the OAIC, updating our own Privacy and Health Record Resource Handbook to include an updated privacy policy template to guide practices when writing or updating their privacy policy.

“This resource is available on the AMA website at https://ama.com.au/article/privacy-and-health-record-resource-handbook-medical-practitioners-private-sector

“The AMA will continue to work with practices to help them to navigate privacy laws, and have in place the right policies and processes to satisfy their legal and ethical obligations,” Dr Morton said.

 

NACCHO #Aboriginal Health Special Feature : 20 Indigenous health research papers

150525youngboy(withtext)850x240

” This study aimed to examine the accuracy of patient self-reported screening status for diabetes, high cholesterol and cervical cancer among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients when compared with pathology records.

The study was undertaken in an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS). ACCHSs are culturally competent primary health care services and represent self-determination in the provision of health care. They are ideal settings for delivering prevention activities to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

From Insights into nutritionists’ practices and experiences in remote Australian Aboriginal communities

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health is the Journal of the Public Health Association of Australia and is published six times a year, in February, April, June, August, October and December

The current issue features Indigenous health 20 research papers

1.Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: accuracy of patient self-report of screening for diabetes, high cholesterol and cervical cancer

Chronic diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer account for the majority of excess deaths and diseases among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, despite being largely preventable.1 Prevention activities such as regular screening are likely to produce significant health gains.2 To achieve these gains clinicians need appropriate, valid and reliable measures of a patient’s screening history.

Patient self-report is often used by clinicians as a quick and inexpensive way to obtain information about a patient’s screening status. Self-report is also used to determine the effectiveness of interventions intended to increase screening rates. The accuracy of self-report is therefore critical. Research studies in non-Indigenous primary care settings,3–11 including Australia,12–15 have shown that relying on self-report can result in significant under-estimation of the proportion of people who require screening. Under-estimating the time period since a patient’s last screening has been reported, especially among minority populations16,17 including indigenous native American women.18 Studies have also found that self-reported population survey data often under-estimates the prevalence of screening, particularly among marginalised population groups.9,10,19,20

Few published studies have investigated the validity of self-reported health issues among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. One study found self-reported information under-estimated the smoking status of pregnant Indigenous women,21 and another found a modest correlation between self-report and measured physical activity among Aboriginal children.22

This study aimed to examine the accuracy of patient self-reported screening status for diabetes, high cholesterol and cervical cancer among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients when compared with pathology records. The study was undertaken in an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS). ACCHSs are culturally competent primary health care services and represent self-determination in the provision of health care. They are ideal settings for delivering prevention activities to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

2.Insights into nutritionists’ practices and experiences in remote Australian Aboriginal communities

Access to and adequate intake of a range of foods to meet the body’s energy and nutrient requirements is a universal cornerstone of good health and wellbeing. Among Aboriginal Australians, nutrition plays a significant direct and indirect role in suboptimal growth and development in children and the excessive burden of preventable chronic disease in adults.1,2 Public health nutrition is an integral part of population health that seeks to promote optimal nutrition status and good health, and prevent illness and associated economic and social costs of disease.3–5

For more than 20 years, public health and community nutritionists have worked in the Northern Territory (NT) within remote Aboriginal communities, both within the government public health sector and non-government organisations, such as Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations. The term ‘public health nutritionist’ refers to practitioners working in population approaches to public health nutrition.

In the remote Aboriginal context, stakeholders within the food landscape can include remote community stores/shops, schools, childcare, aged-care facilities and health centres, community groups, Aboriginal health workers (AHWs) and families and individuals.6 Within these settings, nutritionists ideally work with and through local community members, including AHWs, to jointly address expressed food and nutrition-related priorities. For these reasons, the terms ‘community nutritionist’ and ‘public health nutritionist’ have been used interchangeably. The term ‘dietitian’ tends to refer to practitioners focusing on clinical and individual aspects of nutritional health. Increasingly, dietetic qualifications are mandatory for nutritionists working with remote Aboriginal communities, as many practitioners also provide a clinical service.

In remote Aboriginal communities, nutritionists perform numerous functions calling for a wide range of competencies that require social, communication and relationship building skills3 and cultural adeptness, including a culturally competent7 and culturally safe approach.8 The call for nutrition practitioners, and their training and employment structures, to move towards broader sociological9 and critical10 approaches appears especially relevant in a cross-cultural world where food permeates many aspects of life. This also supports the internationally agreed notion of ‘health’ that recognises the existence of various cultural and world views, and the imperative of supporting the layers of social and ecological factors that underpin one’s state of health by addressing healthcare at multiple levels.11 Across all these skills and levels, one universal and fundamental element is communication. All health workers in cross-cultural settings must communicate across social and cultural world views. Clear health communication is vital to assist with understanding and to empower individuals and groups to make informed decisions.12,13 Community empowerment is one key element of successful community nutrition interventions.14 Nutritionists working in remote Aboriginal communities ideally engage with a range of community stakeholders, including Aboriginal health and local community workers.

Remote health staff and health services speak of numerous challenges in providing remote health services and the complexities of delivering primary and health promotion services.15–19 While high staff turnover is a considerable issue,17 little is understood of the challenges facing nutrition practitioners especially in this cross-cultural context.20,21 We used a qualitative methodology to explore communication methods, education practices and approaches, perceived challenges and the potential role of nutritionists. The study aimed to support nutritionists working in remote Aboriginal communities and inform ongoing efforts to create supportive environments that promote nutritional health and effective communication and facilitate behaviour change.

3.Legally invisible: stewardship for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health

4. The comparative cost of food and beverages at remote Indigenous communities, Northern Territory, Australia (pages S21–S26)

5. Use of electronic visual recording to aid assessment of dietary intake of Australian Aboriginal children living in remote communities

6. Bundap Marram Durn Durn: Engagement with Aboriginal women experiencing comorbid chronic physical and mental health conditions

7.The economic feasibility of price discounts to improve diet in Australian Aboriginal remote communities

8. Trachoma in remote Indigenous Australia: a review and public health perspective

9. The value of partnerships: lessons from a multi-site evaluation of a national social and emotional wellbeing program for Indigenous youth

10.Hypertension: high prevalence and a positive association with obesity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth in far north Queensland

SEE ALL ARTICLES HERE

Download the NACCHO Newspaper April edition here

KME623p037-naccho-V2-247x350

150525youngboy(withtext)850x240

Watch NACCHO TV HERE

NACCHO’s new Baseline Profiles to demonstrate extent, experience and value of the ACCHO Sector to policy makers

NACCHO-Member-Services-2015-11-1024x939

“NACCHO will use the Baseline Profile to demonstrate the extent, experience and value of the ACCHO Sector to policy makers in government and those developing new programmes and budgets.

NACCHO is developing Baseline Profiles for its Member Services in 300 locations coordinated by 140 NACCHO Member Services as a first step in getting health and related data back in the hands of the Member Service ACCHOs and their communities.”

ACCHOs are a critical component of Australia’s primary health care system; the Baseline Profiles and Member Service’s localised profiles will re-enforce this fact “

Matthew Cooke Chair NACCHO

NACCHO delivers Map-Based Decision Support Services – Our Data in Our Hands for more info

NACCHO Baseline Profiles – putting data to work is from NACCHO Aboriginal Health Newspaper Page 10 April edition : Download 24 pages here

In these times of changing Federal policies, cut backs in areas of funding and overall fiscal constraints, ACCHOs are faced with providing broad ranging evidence of their performance to justify existing budgets and staffing levels, as well as justifying applications for new funding for the expansion of services into identified areas of need.

Challenges are also arising as an increasing number of programmes are being funnelled through the newly formed Primary Health Networks.

A new approach for determining funding allocations being used by the government and PHNs is referred to as “market testing”. This approach will potentially require ACCHOs to compete with state and territory health departments, other NGOs and for-profit practices and corporations for the provision of basic services and for the delivery of new programmes.

Mapping the service delivery footprint of ACCHOs service areas is important to demonstrate their role and significance as unique providers of comprehensive primary health care in over 300 locations coordinated by 140 NACCHO Member Services. ACCHOs are working with many of the new PHNs to build an understanding of the actual range of services provided to the population in their communities and the geographic extent of their service delivery. PHNs are required by the Department of Health to develop Health Needs Assessments and associated planning.

The ACCHO Sector has over 320,000 clients with over 3.7million client contacts delivered in 2013-2014. In comparison, the number of Emergency Department presentations in public hospital emergency departments in all states and territories was 7,195,903 (2013-2014) and RFDS undertook 292,523 client (patient) contacts in the same period.

NACCHOs Baseline Profiles, based on publicly available data, are being created for each Member Service. The profiles form a template to enable Member Services to add data from their own information systems. These localised templates will then be available for use in reports for Service planning and to provide evidence of performance, as well as for communications with community, funding bodies and policy makers.  A critical aspect of planning is “access to services”, for both existing services and for identifying areas where there is no access i.e. gaps.

The Baseline Profiles are using drive times (the time it takes to drive to an ACCHO) as a way of determining accessibility to health services, building on the work of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council (QAIHC).

SEE Koori Mail for 2 and 3 below :The graphic shows example panels from the Baseline Profile for the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service in the electorate of Durack and Country WA PHN.

Map 1

1.Maps showing the 60 minute drive time area from Geraldton, age-gender pyramid of the population and service delivery area for the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service (GRAMS)
2.Heat map showing areas with a high density of Aboriginal people and the area included in a 60 minute drive time. Aboriginal population within the 60 minute drive-time of Geraldton is 3,382 with 4,727 in the larger service delivery area (ABS Census 2011) 3.Age-gender pyramid of the Aboriginal population in the 60minute drive time area.

Service delivery area with GRAMS fixed and mobile clinic serviced locations.

 

 

 

NACCHO Aboriginal Health News Alert :My Health Record ; Improved Health Data to better coordinate care

 E health-WEB-300x271

The Federal Government will drive better patient outcomes for Australians living complex chronic illness as part of its Healthier Medicare reform package, by improving digital heath records and data around health outcomes that will make it easier to co-ordinate their care and measure their progress. “

The Hon. Sussan Ley Minister for Health Press release PART A Below

“Lifesaving “break-glass option” was included in the new My Health Record, allowing patients to have maximum security protections while also not having to worry about blocking access to their vital information in medical emergencies such as anaphylaxis, heart attacks, stroke or accidents where a patient is unconscious.

The record would mean people will not have to remember the names of their medications, details of diagnosis and treatments, allergies, medical procedures and there will be no need to repeat the same information when they see another doctor or go to hospital”

From News report  PART B : Your personal health information is about to go online but you can stop it

Digital health measures including the new My Health Record , telehealth services, remote health monitoring and medication management technologies can improve patient access to services and increase the efficiency of the health system.

The My Health Record will be an essential element of these reforms that will support all members of a patient’s health care team to work in constant consultation with each other, through the seamless sharing of information such as medications, treatments, allergies and care plans.

This will also help keep patients engaged in their own care planning, by cutting down on frustrating duplication of tests and treatments for them, whilst also delivering efficiencies to the system.

Greater use of the My Health Record and other data reporting mechanisms is a key recommendation of the Turnbull Government’s clinician-led Primary Health Care Advisory Group (PHCAG).

This is backed up by PHCAG’s consultations, which found 90% of survey respondents agreed that it is important to measure and report patient health outcomes.

“Although existing data collections provide some useful information about primary health care in

Australia, they cannot be used to build a complete picture of why a typical patient went to a primary health care provider, what occurred during the consultation, what actions were recommended and taken, and with what outcome and cost. There are gaps in the picture of primary health care provider-patient encounters and of health care over time.”

As such, our Healthier Medicare reforms will also improve data collection on primary health care through the creation of a quality improvement framework and the foundation of a National Minimum Data Set.

This will include the collection of de-identified information and associated reporting to support continuous service delivery improvement.

It will provide a similar level of information on primary care to that available in other parts of the health system.

Improved primary care data will mean we can better measure a patient’s individual progress, tailor their care plan to their needs, and know when they are achieving their health goals

Better data collection will also allow Health Care Homes to compare the progress of their patients with that of other practices with similar health issues, and help them to improve the quality of care they provide. At a whole of system level it will provide higher-quality de-identified data to inform the work of policy makers and researchers.

Collecting data on health outcomes and patient and provider satisfaction will mean that we can evaluate the success of the Health Care Home model.

By rolling out Health Care Homes through trials in Primary Health Networks regions across the country we will also be able to refine the model to ensure it provides local flexibility to support care in communities with different demographics, health needs and access to health services.

Embracing new technologies and the My Heath Record along with stronger data collection, measurement and evaluation tools will help to better coordinate and manage care, particularly for those with chronic and complex health needs.

PART B : Your personal health information is about to go online but you can stop it

ONE million Australians will automatically have their personal health information uploaded onto the internet from July as the government tries to resurrect the failed $1 billion e-health record.

More than 360,000 residents of Penrith in Sydney’s west and 700,000 in North Queensland will be the first to trial the new opt-out My Health Record.

The record will contain a summary of their health status put in by their doctor, records of their medicines and allergies and eventually links to x-ray and medical test results.

Patients in these areas will have to notify the government by June if they do not wish their personal health information used in such a record.

The e-health record introduced by the previous Labor Government in 2012 has cost more than $1 billion but only one in 10 or around 2.5 million Australians have one.

Only 78,000 health summaries have been uploaded and virtually no doctors are using the records.

And e-health experts have warned the eight-year-old policy that underpins the records is so outdated it was written before the cloud and tablet computers, the first iPhone was less than a year old, Twitter was not open to the public, neither Google Chrome or streaming existed and there were only 500 apps on the Apple App store in 2008.

While the policy has yet to be brought up-to-date, the Coalition government hopes to make the record effective by switching from an opt in to an opt-out system.

This means Australians will automatically be given a record and have to opt out if they wish to protect information about private medical information such as abortions, mental health and sexual disease problems.

Fines up to half a million dollars and even jail sentences apply to anyone who tries to deliberately misuse or access information in the health record.

Patients would have ultimate control over who accessed their information, including adding additional password protections, she said.

They will be able to lock down access to specific GPs or hospitals, view every person who has opened the record and delete files that are unwanted.

Ms Ley said a lifesaving “break-glass option” was included in the new My Health Record, allowing patients to have maximum security protections while also not having to worry about blocking access to their vital information in medical emergencies such as anaphylaxis, heart attacks, stroke or accidents where a patient is unconscious.

The record would mean people will not have to remember the names of their medications, details of diagnosis and treatments, allergies, medical procedures and there will be no need to repeat the same information when they see another doctor or go to hospital, she said.

“I consider this a landmark turning point in improving our health system and bringing it into the 21st century,” she said.

Doctors say they’re unlikely to use the system until a critical mass of patients have a record but they are also concerned a patient may be able to make changes to the record without consulting a doctor and claim it can’t be trusted if this is the case.

To encourage doctors to start using the records the Government will from May require them to upload shared health summaries to five patients records every quarter in return for an e-health incentive payment worth $50,000 a year.

The government also estimates a fully-functioning national e-health system could save taxpayers $2.5 billion per year within a decade by reducing inefficiencies, with an additional $1.6 billion in annual savings also delivered to the states.

 

NACCHO eHealth News: Developing a 21st century electronic health record system

6813

“A functioning national electronic medical records system is essential to ensure doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare providers across the country had instant access to the information needed to treat patients safely and efficiently without having to gamble on unknowns in their medical history,”

“As patients, we’ve all been in the situations where we’ve had to attend another GP surgery because we were out-of-town or couldn’t get an appointment with our regular doctor. It can be a time consuming and often frustrating experience for patients and doctors alike.”

Minister for Health Sussan Ley has announced the Committee that will oversee the rebooted personalised My Health Record system for patients and doctors as part of a $485 million package to deliver Australians an electronic medical record system.

SEE Government website for more info

Ms Ley announced the appointment of Ms Robyn Kruk AM as the independent chair of the eHealth Implementation Taskforce Steering Committee responsible for the establishment of the Australian Commission for eHealth.

Picture above : in 2013 IT trainee Tiara Wilkinson played a key role in the e-health revolution that was quietly taking place in Australia’s remote north-west. 

From her soundproof booth at the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council (KAMSC) in Broome, Tiara was part of a team providing helpdesk support, training and ‘data cleansing’ to around 500 clinical and medical admin staff in 17 medical clinics stretching across 300,000 km in the Kimberley region – plus a few extras, like the Halls Creek Pharmacy and Puntukurnu Aboriginal Medical Services

In the 2015-16 Budget, the Coalition Government announced $485 million for the redevelopment of the My Health Record system to strengthen and transform national digital health governance through an Australian Commission for eHealth.

Ms Ley said the Implementation Taskforce Steering Committee brings together clinicians, public and private healthcare service providers, consumers, health informatics and analytics specialists, technology innovators and people experienced in delivery of digital health services.

Ms Kruk will be assisted by the skills and expertise of Dr Steve Hambleton, Dr Ewen McPhee, Dr Chris Pearce, Mr Richard Royle, Dr Eileen Doyle, Ms Jan Donovan, Mr Peter Cooper, Mr Mike Walsh, Mr Stephen Moo and Mr Paul Madden.

“In this modern world where technology makes information sharing boundless, it is essential Australia has a national digital health system and My Health Record makes up an important part of this system,” Ms Ley said.

“Ms Kruk has held several significant public service positions at the state and federal government level in health and environment, most recently, as chief executive of the National Mental Health Commission.

“The implementation taskforce steering committee will design, implement and oversee the transition of functions and resources from the Department of Health and the National e-Health Transition Authority to the Australian Commission for eHealth.

“The Australian Commission for eHealth will simplify and streamline the current governance arrangements and will ensure better accountability, greater transparency and improve stakeholder engagement throughout.”

The Australian Commission for eHealth will also oversee the operation and evolution of national electronic health systems and will be the system operator of the My Health Record System.

Ms Ley said next year, the Government will conduct trials of different participation arrangements for My Health Record, including opt-out, to identify the best approaches for increasing participation in the national digital health system.

“It’s important that all Australians are signed up to ensure we have a functioning system and trialling an opt-out model means we can do it carefully, methodically and ensure the appropriate protections are in place to give patients peace of mind,” Ms Ley said.

“If automatic registration for a digital health record in the opt-out trials leads to higher participation in the My Health Record system, the Government will consider adopting opt-out on a national scale.”

The Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015 was introduced to Parliament recently and includes the allowance of opt-out trials of the My Health Record system to be conducted.

Members of the Implementation Taskforce Steering Committee are:

Ms Robyn Kruk,

Independent Chair
Dr Steve Hambleton Clinician
Dr Ewen McPhee Clinician
Dr Chris Pearce Health Informatician
Mr Richard Royle Private Health Sector
Dr Eileen Doyle Governance and organisational design
Ms Jan Donovan Consumer matters
Mr Peter Cooper Information Technology and Innovation
Mr Michael Walsh Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council
Mr Stephen Moo Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council
Mr Paul Madden Commonwealth

NACCHO Healthy Futures Summit Melbourne 24-26 June 2014 : Invitation to submit abstracts

summit-2014-banner

On behalf of the NACCHO Board and Secretariat it is my pleasure to invite you to submit an abstract to the NACCHO Healthy Futures Summit at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre 24-26 June 2014.

abstract-blocks

ALL ABSTRACTS MUST BE SUBMITTED VIA THE ABSTRACT PORTAL

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO REGISTER

NACCHO would like to demonstrate to the government at this summit how investing more in ACCHS is the best way of promoting better health more employment, more jobs and greater community economic benefits.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSIONS ONLINE

NACCHO Healthy futures Summit-Melbourne 24-26 June 2014

NACCHO invites abstracts submission from its members the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Affiliates and key stakeholder organisations to showcase policy frameworks, best practice and investment in Aboriginal Health.

The delegates will be a representation from all over Australia in clinical practice, policy and research.

IMPORTANT DATES

Call for Abstracts open 25 February
All Abstracts Due 21 Mar 2014
Abstract Notifications 4 April 2014
Presenter Registration Due 18 April 2014
Early bird registrations open 25 February 2014
Early-Bird registrations Closes 18 April 2014
Program released 4 April 2014
Exhibition and sponsorship 16 May 2014
NACCHO 2014 Summit 24 -26 June 2014

Program Streams

1.Economic Development

  • Economic models of investment  into Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation
  • Economic models of investment through partnership
  • Income generation through Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations
  • Brokerage Modelling with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation

2.Health Reform

2.1 Workforce

Abstract that demonstrates best practice within Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Affiliates and key stakeholders that reflect these themes:

  • National, State, Regional and Local Workforce Needs Analysis
  • Models of success
  • Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • Mentoring Programs
  • Workforce Innovation Partnership
  • Career pathways that incorporate Scope of Practice within ACCHO’s

2.2 Continuous Quality Improvement

  • Affiliate Registered Training Organisations Capacity Building of ACCHO’s through scope of practice
  • Accreditation
  • Clinical Standards

3.Healthy Futures

Abstract that demonstrates best practice within Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Affiliates and key stakeholders that reflect these themes:

  • Clinic Practice/frontline servicing
  • Mental Health
  • Social Emotional Wellbeing
  • Drug & Alcohol
  • Mums & Babies
  • Women’s Health
  • Men’s Health
  • Oral Health
  • Aged Care
  • Disabilities
  • Adolescent
  • Sexual Health

4.Youth

Abstract that demonstrates best practice within Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Affiliates and key stakeholders that reflect these themes:

  • Investment in Youth by Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations
  • Career pathways within an ACCHO, Affiliates and key stakeholders
  • Youth Leadership
  • Mentoring
  • Healthy Lifestyles and Youth
  • Health Promotion Strategies

5.Research & Data

Abstract that demonstrates best practice within Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Affiliates and key stakeholders that reflect these themes:

  • Population Health
  • Best practice models
  • Gap and Needs analysis
  • Research within Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations
  • Research Partnerships
  • Health Information
  • Importance of Data
  • Cultural protocols into practice
  • What’s the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Data telling us?

General guidelines for submissions

  • Abstracts will only be accepted by submitting through the online process below .
  • Abstracts must be a maximum of 300 words .
  • All abstracts must be original work.
  • The abstract will contain text only; no diagrams, illustrations, tables or graphics.
  • All presenting authors must register and pay for their registration for the conference by 18 April 2014 otherwise the presentation will be removed from the program.
  • The NACCHO advisory group reserves the right to accept and reject abstracts for inclusion in the program and allocate to a format that may not have been initially specified by the author/presenter.
  • The conference organisers will not be held responsible for submission errors caused by internet service outages, hardware or software delays, power outages or unforeseen events.
  • It is the responsibility of the presenting author to ensure that the abstract is submitted correctly. After an author has submitted their abstract, they should check their abstract was uploaded successfully.
  • All authors will receive notification of the outcome of their submission on 4 April 2014.
  • Responsibility for the accuracy of abstracts rests with the author.
  • Where there are co-authors, only one abstract is to be submitted. The presenting author is responsible for ensuring the co-authors agree with and are aware of the content before submitting the abstract.
  • An abstract which does not adhere to these requirements will not be accepted

ALL ABSTRACTS MUST BE SUBMITTED VIA THE ABSTRACT PORTAL

For further information contact the NACCHO SUMMIT TEAM 02 6246 9300 or EMAIL