6 ms·

It's really not that much money as an incentive. Doctors won't do it unless they believe it's a good thing. Source: I'm an Australian doctor.

by jazoom 8y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
What are you doing, and what is your professional organisation (the AMA) doing, to counter long wait times for doctors visits?
- jazoom 8y ago
  I dunno man. I'm not a member of the AMA and I've always run pretty well on time unless I get bowled a bouncer. I used to get frustrated with doctors running late, until I became one. It's the patients that come before you that largely determine how late the doctor is. If someone might be having an MI but only came in to discuss "reflux" the doctor is going to run behind. What would you do about it? Though, I'm not sure why you're asking me this since it has nothing to do with this thread.
- RichEO 8y ago
  So much entitlement in this post Never the less, I’ll bite because this is a topic of interest to me. What kind of wait times are you talking about? Emergency room? Public non-emergent and elective surgery? Private practice specialists? Bulk billing or private billing general practice?
- zanchey 8y ago
  You can have most stuff in Australian healthcare good, cheap or fast. Pick two.
zanchey 8y ago
Are you opting out? I keep remembering that AHPRA applied for warrantless access to metadata, and thinking that perhaps I might be better without a record in case the wideranging provisions for access by other agencies get deployed too liberally.
- jazoom 8y ago
  This is an interesting question and I'm still pondering on the implications. I am generally in favour of people signing up for this (or not opting out as the case is now) because it very well may save their life one day. Emergency departments especially will benefit in being able to look up details on the patient. It's amazing how little most people know about their own health history. I suppose it may also help me if I end up in ED unconscious and have some health condition they would need to know about. That situation is unlikely, and even if it did happen they could call my wife, who is also a doctor, and she'd also know what's important in my history. So for me, there's very little benefit I see. Couple that with my distrust of the Australian Government's ability to outsource their critical infrastructure to American companies (facepalm) and have it actually work (facepalm), I'm leaning towards opting out. For patients in general, I think the benefit to them will outweigh the risk of their personal data being stolen. If only our government wasn't so inept with IT (we have plenty of good developers here. Why not make our own teams to build things?) I would be able to recommend this health initiative to everyone. Edit: autocorrect fail
  - manicdee 8y ago
    My Health Tecird is not going to help you in the ER in any way shape or form. At best it will be useless at worst it will be wrong. It is not a complete record, and you will only be shown a summary of medical history not a clinically useful record. In addition the patient may have sought opinions from multiple doctors, any of whom may not use MHR. The risk to most people who don’t actually need complex diagnoses will be endless calls from lawyers and insurance sales along with a web experience modified to keep them worried about that visit to the doctor about a possible STI last Valentine’s day.
    - jazoom 8y ago
      > My Health Tecird is not going to help you in the ER in any way shape or form. So you've been a doctor working in ED? > will only be shown a summary of medical history not a clinically useful record I'm going to guess you're not a doctor, since then you'd know how much more useful a medical summary is than no information at all. Hell, if I have NOTHING BUT the patient's medication list, I can usually make a pretty good guess about their medical history. If the health record contained only patients' medications it would prevent an enormous amount of morbidity and mortality, as well as saving time for doctors, nurses and pharmacists all around the country. Sure, it might not be complete, but it's far more likely to be complete than patients' memory of what meds they take for which disease, in which doses and with which frequency.

It's really not that much money as an incentive. Doctors won't do it unless they believe it's a good thing. Source: I'm an Australian doctor.

by jazoom 8y ago

It's really not that much money as an incentive. Doctors won't do it unless they believe it's a good thing. Source: I'm an Australian doctor.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

What are you doing, and what is your professional organisation (the AMA) doing, to counter long wait times for doctors visits?

jazoom 8y ago
I dunno man. I'm not a member of the AMA and I've always run pretty well on time unless I get bowled a bouncer. I used to get frustrated with doctors running late, until I became one. It's the patients that come before you that largely determine how late the doctor is. If someone might be having an MI but only came in to discuss "reflux" the doctor is going to run behind. What would you do about it? Though, I'm not sure why you're asking me this since it has nothing to do with this thread.
RichEO 8y ago
So much entitlement in this post Never the less, I’ll bite because this is a topic of interest to me. What kind of wait times are you talking about? Emergency room? Public non-emergent and elective surgery? Private practice specialists? Bulk billing or private billing general practice?
zanchey 8y ago
You can have most stuff in Australian healthcare good, cheap or fast. Pick two.

zanchey 8y ago

Are you opting out? I keep remembering that AHPRA applied for warrantless access to metadata, and thinking that perhaps I might be better without a record in case the wideranging provisions for access by other agencies get deployed too liberally.

jazoom 8y ago
This is an interesting question and I'm still pondering on the implications. I am generally in favour of people signing up for this (or not opting out as the case is now) because it very well may save their life one day. Emergency departments especially will benefit in being able to look up details on the patient. It's amazing how little most people know about their own health history. I suppose it may also help me if I end up in ED unconscious and have some health condition they would need to know about. That situation is unlikely, and even if it did happen they could call my wife, who is also a doctor, and she'd also know what's important in my history. So for me, there's very little benefit I see. Couple that with my distrust of the Australian Government's ability to outsource their critical infrastructure to American companies (facepalm) and have it actually work (facepalm), I'm leaning towards opting out. For patients in general, I think the benefit to them will outweigh the risk of their personal data being stolen. If only our government wasn't so inept with IT (we have plenty of good developers here. Why not make our own teams to build things?) I would be able to recommend this health initiative to everyone. Edit: autocorrect fail
- manicdee 8y ago
  My Health Tecird is not going to help you in the ER in any way shape or form. At best it will be useless at worst it will be wrong. It is not a complete record, and you will only be shown a summary of medical history not a clinically useful record. In addition the patient may have sought opinions from multiple doctors, any of whom may not use MHR. The risk to most people who don’t actually need complex diagnoses will be endless calls from lawyers and insurance sales along with a web experience modified to keep them worried about that visit to the doctor about a possible STI last Valentine’s day.
  - jazoom 8y ago
    > My Health Tecird is not going to help you in the ER in any way shape or form. So you've been a doctor working in ED? > will only be shown a summary of medical history not a clinically useful record I'm going to guess you're not a doctor, since then you'd know how much more useful a medical summary is than no information at all. Hell, if I have NOTHING BUT the patient's medication list, I can usually make a pretty good guess about their medical history. If the health record contained only patients' medications it would prevent an enormous amount of morbidity and mortality, as well as saving time for doctors, nurses and pharmacists all around the country. Sure, it might not be complete, but it's far more likely to be complete than patients' memory of what meds they take for which disease, in which doses and with which frequency.