4 ms·

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 ca

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.
- flukus 8y ago
  > 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. It's not the government IT I'm worried about so much, it's all the local doctors that get access to medical records and have inept IT security. Previously if there was a breach at a practice it was only the data of the patients of that practice, now if there is a breach at a practice they can potentially access the medical records anyone in the country. The attack surface is huge and largely unguarded and now there is a massive reward for breaching it. > 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. This can be solved with a card in your wallet, which they have to go into to find which health records to lookup anyway.
  - jazoom 8y ago
    You have a really good point about local practice security. I agree. I disagree about the card in wallet thing. Patients won't keep it updated. Also, most patients won't have it on them. And for many patients it would have to be a book, rather than a card. See my other comment talking about medications.
  - sytringy05 8y ago
    PEXA have pointed this out in great expensive detail with conveyancers. Every week there's a $300k theft of house sale settlements, always because some hacker has gained control of the settlement party's account. I doubt medical practices are as bad as backyard shops like conveyancers but you are spot on, the incentives are definitely there

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.
flukus 8y ago
> 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. It's not the government IT I'm worried about so much, it's all the local doctors that get access to medical records and have inept IT security. Previously if there was a breach at a practice it was only the data of the patients of that practice, now if there is a breach at a practice they can potentially access the medical records anyone in the country. The attack surface is huge and largely unguarded and now there is a massive reward for breaching it. > 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. This can be solved with a card in your wallet, which they have to go into to find which health records to lookup anyway.
- jazoom 8y ago
  You have a really good point about local practice security. I agree. I disagree about the card in wallet thing. Patients won't keep it updated. Also, most patients won't have it on them. And for many patients it would have to be a book, rather than a card. See my other comment talking about medications.
- sytringy05 8y ago
  PEXA have pointed this out in great expensive detail with conveyancers. Every week there's a $300k theft of house sale settlements, always because some hacker has gained control of the settlement party's account. I doubt medical practices are as bad as backyard shops like conveyancers but you are spot on, the incentives are definitely there