Health Information Technology for Bureau - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theHealth Information Technologyfor Australian Bureau. Answer: Introduction According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in about 100 years, from 1900 to 2004, the Australian population has grown from 4 million to 20 million (Kisely, S. 2013). This is a relatively huge population that in one way or another requires health care services. The Australian public and government are already aware of the challenges it faces regarding healthcare delivery and is already assessing options that will improve overall efficiency in the health sector. Although the health of the Australian population has improved over the last century with the Australian Bureau of Statistics reporting life expectancy to be 80 years old in 2004, more efforts need to be made to reduce the mortality and morbidity rates as much as possible (Siahpush, M. 2014). The country has one of the highest life expectancy rates in the world, and most of the population already has access to high-quality healthcare whether they reside in the rural or urban areas of the vast country. About 66% of Austral ians live in the cities while the rest of the culturally diverse nation live in the countryside. There are a few disparities between the urban and rural authorities about the integration of health information technologies, and thus about 2.4% of the population especially those in the countryside have much poorer health than the other Australians. Importance of Information Technology on Health Organizations Health Information Technology refers to Information Technology that is applied health and health care. Aspects of health information systems incorporate information management conducted by computerized systems and the transfer and sharing of health information and records via secure means between patients, providers, consumers and quality control experts (Jones, S. 2013). Having an efficient health information system aids doctors, pharmacists, patients, nurses and other healthcare providers to securely electronically access and share a patients crucial medical records thus enhancing the speed of coordination, safety, quality and cost of patient care. The following is a list of areas that benefit from improved and advanced healthcare information systems; Improved healthcare productivity, quality, and effectiveness Patients enjoy reduced healthcare costs Increase in accuracy of healthcare records and procedural correctness by preventing medical errors Improved healthcare work processes and coordination in increased administrative efficiency Reduced paperwork hence saving time Challenges Facing Implementation Of Health Information Technologies In Australia Since 1993, efforts by government agencies in Australia such as the National Health Information Agreement, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, The Australian Bureau of Statistics and The Health Insurance Commission, have established a framework of corporation in between these agency for the betterment of the Australian Health Information Technologies (Merlin, T. 2016). As is it being with any other advancement of a government program, there certain obstacles that hinder the timely progress of health information systems. Each year an estimated 18000 people are believed to die as a result of apparent medical errors.' Below is a look at the barriers to the implementation of health information technology. Technological Barriers The last two decades have seen a huge growth in technology with innovations from great minds on both software and hardware development in all kinds of professions including the healthcare fraternity. Healthcare Information Technologies is run and managed by software that is responsible keeping electronic health records (Bisbal, J. 2013). Advancement in technology has led to new innovative Electronic Health Record software that requires powerful high performing Hardware for optimum performance and efficiency. Therefore, for successful transmission and transfer of health information throughout the healthcare system, one needs an up to date and high performing computerized communication system. Unfortunately, parts of Australia especially those located in rural settings can find it difficult to connect to this system and the internet hence hindering transfer and receipt of vital healthcare information (Li, J. 2014). Another thing to consider is the electronic health records software's user-friendliness. This has been a significant challenge in the implementation of the Australian Health Information Technologies across Australia. There are certain software vendors whose software is coded in a way that doesn't bring out a user-friendly interface, and this can be a challenge especially to the elderly front line physicians who are expected to use these systems on a day to day basis (Raghupathi, V. 2014). It can prove unaccommodating for both doctors and patients who are not well versed in technology to put in health records into a system that is not user-friendly or easy to use and operate. This has resulted in the slow implementation of health IT especially in rural areas. There are those physicians that still prefer the old hands-on approach in delivering health care services and are not ready to embrace the technological revolution that is taking place in Australia and all over the world. Since these physicians still have an active voice in the medical practitioners' societies, they can prove to be obstacles to the development of Electronic Health Records systems across all the health care providers in Australia (Saoji, S. 2016). These physicians have significantly aided in the slow adoption of Health Information Technologies by health care givers by arguing that these technologies come in the way of delivering health services that have a human touch and connection. It is also their opinion that the machines' are not as flexible to change as a person would be, and hence they deprive the patients of the needed connection in certain situations. They also feel that this software is not engineered I a way that offers clinician workflow. This situation de teriorates further as most physicians are reluctant to attending training sessions that the intergovernmental organizations in Australia provide. Costs of Implementation and Maintenance Although the Australian government has commissioned $43 billion to develop the National Broadband Network (NBN) which is tasked with providing the infrastructure needed for the implementation of health information technology, electronic health has been receiving insufficient funding. In August 2011, a House of Representatives Committee reported that establishment of the National Broadband Network will ensure efficient service delivery by reducing time and costs of healthcare services to citizens and service providers' (Dodson, J. 2014). However, the opposition seems to be against the spending of $43 billion on the National Broadband Network questioning its ability to deliver on the critical areas surrounding Electronic Medical Records. They argue that the specific aspects of electronic healthcare established and are of vital importance to the foundation and sustainability of the healthcare information technology have received insufficient or inappropriately targeted funding (Farid, R . 2017). The cost of setting up hardware equipment along with establishing the necessary networking infrastructure undeniably preposterous and with the hold backs created by the opposition, the delays make for a slow implementation problem. Australian Medical Association Concerns The Electronic Medical Records system allows both patients and doctors to input information on their records. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) questioned the extent to which patients can be allowed to change or alter the information on their health records. The association feels that the importance of keeping legit and honest records should be stressed. The organization insists that to ensure that information on a patient's history is always from a trusted source,' only medical practitioners should be allowed to alter medical information on a patient's medical electronic record. Registry Implementation In the process of establishing a national performance framework targeted at assessing health outcomes across the healthcare system, the Australian government has entrusted the Clinical Quality Registries to systematically monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of healthcare delivery in Australia (Smith, K. 2015). These logs provide credible means of monitoring health care processes and outcomes by collecting, analyzing and reporting on healthcare related information on a regular basis. The data collected by these registries are used to identify variation and benchmarks in clinical outcomes and then this information is communicated to the clinicians to equip them for clinical practice and decision making. This loop of events in the registry is redefining the future of clinical records as this information can be passed on to other healthcare providers, jurisdictions, researchers and clinical colleges thus continuously improving the quality of healthcare service delivery. Clinical quality aims at ameliorating patient outcomes, apprising the development of new guidelines and standards and enhancing compliance with evidence-based facts (Callaghan, J. 2015). Having the clinical registries in place to monitor the clinical and medical outcomes positively affects the healthcare. This information can be used as a basis of performance assessment for individual entities within the entire Australian Healthcare system. In other words, the implementation of the new clinical registries has made particular entities of the healthcare system to perform more efficiently. In conclusion, the Australian government should update the framework to clarify governance arrangements and use this framework as a basis for the development of a standard for the clinical quality registries. References Lawrence, D., Hancock, K., Kisely, S. (2013). The gap in life expectancy from preventable physical illness in psychiatric patients in Western Australia: retrospective analysis of population based registers. Bmj, 346, f2539. Singh, G. K., Siahpush, M. (2014). Widening ruralurban disparities in life expectancy, US, 19692009. American journal of preventive medicine, 46(2), e19-e29. Kellermann, A., Jones, S. (2013). What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health affairs, 32(1), 63-68. Lopes, E., Street, J., Carter, D., Merlin, T. (2016). Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expectations, 19(2), 331-344. Bisbal, J. (2013). Electronic Health Record Systems. In Encyclopedia of Systems Biology (pp. 649-650). Springer New York. Jang-Jaccard, J., Nepal, S., Alem, L., Li, J. (2014). Barriers for delivering telehealth in rural Australia: a review based on Australian trials and studies. Telemedicine and e-Health, 20(5), 496-504. Raghupathi, W., Raghupathi, V. (2014). Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health information science and systems, 2(1), 3. Shah, K., Tamboli, A., Pachpute, S., Khare, S., Saoji, S. (2016). Establishment of Electronic Health Records in Developing Countries. International Journal of Computer Applications, 136(11). Alizadeh, T., Sipe, N., Dodson, J. (2014). Spatial Planning and High-Speed Broadband: Australia's National Broadband Network and Metropolitan Planning. International planning studies, 19(3-4), 359-378. Alizadeh, T., Farid, R. (2017). Political economy of telecommunication infrastructure: An investigation of the National Broadband Network early rollout and pork barrel politics in Australia. Telecommunications Policy, 41(4), 242-252. Nehme, Z., Bernard, S., Cameron, P., Bray, J., Meredith, I. T., Lijovic, M., Smith, K. (2015). Using a Cardiac Arrest Registry to Measure the Quality of Emergency Medical Service Care. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 8(1), 56-66. Pugely, A., Martin, C., Harwood, J., Ong, K., Bozic, K., Callaghan, J. (2015). Database and registry research in orthopaedic surgery: part 2: clinical registry data. JBJS, 97(21), 1799-1808.