PCEHR registrations reach two million

Consumer registrations for the PCEHR have reached the two million mark, with the latest statistics from the Department of Health showing that 2,015,624 consumers have now signed up.

As of midnight on Wednesday, December 17, the figures also show that 7600 healthcare provider organisations are registered, including general practices, pharmacies, aged care facilities and hospitals.

The number of shared health summaries uploaded is still lagging considerably, with only 38,207 SHSs on the system.

However, the number of discharge summaries uploaded has reached 85,960, along with 7083 event summaries.

There are currently 1,056,788 prescription and dispense records held in the National Prescription and Dispense Repository (NPDR).

In terms of views of the system, in the week of December 4 to 10, consumers viewed their records 8485 times, but clinical views were very low during the period, with only 560 clinicians viewing the PCEHR that week.

Posted in Australian eHealth

Comments   

# Diane 2014-12-26 03:47
All consensual, or does that include patients who don't fully understand what they're being signed up for?
# Terry hannan 2015-01-06 11:02
Comment: How are we to “interpret” these figures?
The total Registrations represent only 8.4% of the Australian population after 3 years and in excess of $1billion.
For Organisations what % is 7600 of the total who may require or need access to the PCEHR?
Of the total registrations only 1.90% of the total is in Shared health Summaries, 4.26% as Discharge Summaries and even less (0.35%) as Event Summaries.
For the prescription data this was already located in the NPDR so it needs to asked where does this data fit into the PCEHR model?
Probably one of the most important criteria to measure a systems ‘effectiveness’ is in its use. The figures presented here would have to be of significant concern about the PCEHR as a useful tool for clinical care. Only 0.42% of Consumer views and even more disturbing is the 0.03% (almost negligible) incidence of CLINICAL views.
As Mamlin and Biondich published in their criteria for successful eHealth systems the most critical factor is that any such system “must be clinically useful or it will not be used”. (1)

1. Mamlin BW, Biondich PG, Wolfe BA, Fraser H, Jazayeri D, Allen C, et al. Cooking up an open source EMR for developing countries: OpenMRS - a recipe for successful collaboration. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:529-33. Epub 2007/01/24.
# Karen 2015-01-13 00:41
With hacking scandals left, right and centre, you would have to have rocks in your head to want your medical records online. Remember when we used to be able to trust doctors??
# Stephen 2015-01-14 18:28
I agree there is a risk to having medical records online however we also need to keep in mind the Risk v Benefits balance.

As a society we face risks of various types every day and need to keep a reasonable and practical view of what we as society ultimately gain from PCEHR - including more effective support for our families, an opportunity to reduce cost burden on primary care, more proactiveness of care within the family, broader demographic health understanding.

As a society my concern is that we wait until security is defined as 'perfect' and we only start then - this will effectively stall a real opportunity to make a difference and if we don't take a few risks here and there for our children and grand-children who accepts the burden to get started and when?

Whilst everyone involved in EHR management takes every responsibility (in their own way today) - would consistency and central point of control not provide opportunity to enhance integrity? You can lose your identity online today(now), you can lose your credit details by playing online games (see Sony hack) what is it we are really concerned about when it come to de-identified personal medical details?

Without PCEHR (or certainly the ability for sharing of records between medical practitioners and subsequent collaboration) we hold back opportunities for effective personal ownership of our own health and subsequently opportunities throughout community based services for enhancing patient centric care - IMHO.
# Diane 2015-02-10 16:15
They're not de-identified, though, Stephen. And I'm not sure you've really thought through the risks of closing down the lines of communication between patient and doctor through loss of trust.

You also compared it to losing credit card details, do you understand there's a big difference between losing money and completely humiliating a patient by exposing their sensitive medical information? Money can be refunded, dignity can't.

You need to log in to post comments. If you don't have a Pulse+IT website account, click here to subscribe.

Sign up for Pulse+IT eNewsletters

Sign up for Pulse+IT website access

For more information, click here.