The actual report will be crafted from now to June, but in general my impression is that the UK is exploring exactly the issues the US has tackled over the past 5 years.
Applicable US lessons learned include
1. Investment in people is even more important than technology
2. Interoperability needs to use case based with requirements crisply defined
3. Digitizing existing workflows is not very helpful - future state planning needs to envision the possibilities created by automation instead of “electronic paper”
4. Policies must be created and culture must be changed before disruptive technology is implemented
5. Scope, time, and resources are inexorably linked. You cannot have infinite scope in zero time with few resources. Haste makes waste.
My sense is that European economies including the UK are struggling economically and government is looking for quick wins based on technology return on investment. Unfortunately I’ve never experienced an IT project with a measurable return on investment.
The UK is wonderful country with a rich history and amazing people. Our group will do everything in its power to share the HITECH/Meaningful Use experience so that the UK benefits from our successes and avoids our failures.
HIT has failed in the UK as it has in the USA. In fact, the USA should have learned from the UK NHS NPfIT, but were too arrogant to pay attention.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the evidence that HIT has improved outcomes or reduced costs?
What is the evidence that these devices are safe and efficacious?
Who is keeping records on the adverse events caused by HIT?
Just wunderin
Suzy, RN