This is promising:
Health NZ will not be a “passive recipient of vendor solutions” and will be rigorous in defining what it needs in terms of technology, the chair of interim Health NZ says.
I also rather liked this comment:
“While staff on the front line are under real pressure coping with current realities, the corridors of management are cluttered with consultants, contractors and vendors hawking their wares to solve problems which they promote to meet whatever they have for sale,” he said.
Good, insightful stuff, IMO. But then in the next breath we have PWC promoting: “Omnichannel Care”
… which on the surface looks enticing. Or is it reminiscent of “corridors cluttered with consultants” once more? I’m not sure. Looking around at who is promoting ‘Omnichannel’, I can’t help but feel that it’s not clinicians but Microsoft Industry Blogs, SDLC, QnomyHealth, CBRE, and so on.
What is Omnichannel care then? HIMSS talk about its as follows:
New players that have been entering healthcare over the last few years – including big tech companies and big box retailers – have learned the same lessons, and are reshaping their care offerings toward what they’re calling an omnichannel approach, smartly combining in-person care, virtual care, care at home and care by mail.
So on the one hand we have a refreshing take on the current state of healthcare—and on the other, emphasis on packaging.
Is it just me, or does this Omnichannel patter betray a lack of insight into the bold architectural strokes that will be needed if we are to fix the foundations of our digital infrastructure?
I don’t think a Walmart approach will fix much. But perhaps that’s just me?
Dr Jo.