[LINK] Electronic medical records: why we should seek a second

[Roger Clarke]

At 11:48 +1100 20/12/11, David Boxall wrote:
>The risks are huge, granted. Are we to believe that:
>1. privacy is all and;
>2. a single, broadly-accessible health record holds no potential benefit
>for any Australian consumer of health services?
>
>Consider a non-hypothetical middle-aged Aboriginal male, admitted
>semi-conscious to Alice Springs hospital. ...

It's a bit of a straw man, isn't it David?

He has two chronic conditions (diabetes and an allergy to a 
mainstream family of anti-biotics).  So he's already very much within 
the categories I referred to in my earlier posting as being the 
desirable target-areas for eRecords.

In addition, he's a middle-aged Aboriginal male living in Alice 
Springs.  So he's got a third characteristic that, although nominally 
a demographic, is tantamount to a chronic condition as well.

For clarity, my personal position, and, separately, the APF's, are 
strongly in favour of the appropriate use of IT in support of patient 
health care:
http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/eHealth-Policy-090828.pdf

Unfortunately, the current proposals aren't appropriate, and aren't 
targeted at patient health care.

____________________________

>  ... He's mumbling something over
>and over, in a language other than English. When someone finally manages
>to interpret, the message is roughly "Whitefella medicine will kill me".
>
>It is not unknown for such messages to be interpreted as superstitious
>nonsense and disregarded. It is not unknown for the patient to die.
>
>The patient has minimal kidney function, diabetes and a suppurating
>wound on one foot. The treating physician elects minimal treatment until
>she can figure out what's going on.
>
>Through local community resources, the patient is identified, his kin
>are contacted and basic medical history established. It turns out he's
>allergic to a family of antibiotics commonly used to treat the type of
>infection he has.
>
>Finding the information necessary to avoid killing the patient has taken
>several days. In that time, his infection has caused further kidney damage.
>
>Several years earlier, the patient was admitted unconscious to another
>hospital. He was not able to warn treating staff of his allergy, which
>was known since childhood. Treatment didn't kill him, but it did damage
>his kidneys.
>
>If his health records had been available when needed, could outcomes for
>this man have been different? What is the potential for his quality of
>life? What is the potential for his future health costs?
>
>Beyond our comfortable middle-class existence, similar cases are not
>uncommon. Thinking outside our obsessions, are the risks worth taking?
>
>--
>David Boxall                    |  The more that wise people learn
>                                 |  The more they come to appreciate
>http://david.boxall.id.au       |  How much they don't know.
>                                                          --Confucius
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law               University of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University