The second one of these (pwc-dh-trends), by our wonderful HiNZ chair @karenblake. In my opinion far too light on clinical partnership in Digital Health, but I like the rest of it very much (especially the focus on environmental concerns):
1 Like
I quite like the summary section
@karenblake I didnāt understand āPAS, ERM or CRMā. Centralised, integrated PAS creates a source of truth for demographics, appointments etc. and clearly needed, ERM (no discussion needed), CRM for managing comms with consumers. Donāt we need all three?
Hi Chris,
Do we need a PAS, EMR and a CRM? As a small country with a single public health entity, having enterprise systems is arguably the most efficient way of managing data and digital. So I would say yes, we do need all three. Given we have none of these and respecting fiscial constraints, having one would be a great start.
Thanks Karen. Iām with you now. My mind jumped ahead to the longer term. Totally agree with the enterprise system approach.
Do you mean enterprise-wide systems by any chance? That I can agree with wholeheartedly as the benefits a likely to be enormous across all three of those.
Even better would be a system that goes beyond the enterprise (in this case Te Whatu Ora) and includes all health providers in Aotearoa NZ: true nationwide systems. This would be the person-centred approach with the highest potential return on investment.
Enterprise systems (i.e. procured from a private enterprise such as Epic or Orion) are another question, and come with many costs and risks that significantly erode the potential benefits.
Am I the only one who visualises the Starship Enterprise when we talk about enterprise systems? I just seem unable to help myselfā¦ thereās probably a cure out there somewhere. Hereās also hoping we can take a whole of systems approach going forward. Love your work @karenblake and great discussion. Stay safe everyone.
4 Likes
Itās a health service, so Service-wide?
1 Like
Interesting that the term āenterpriseā is so ambiguous. @Ruth_Large I like your approach as the Starship Enterprise is all-inclusive. I agree that a systems approach should be used, once weāve disambiguated the terminology.
Iām reminded of the 2008 discussions about enterprise vs best of breed, which was canned at the last minute, and followed by a resurrection of the debate 5 years later (in the form of whether Epic has potential to meet national needs), which was also canned, followed by another version of the debate (in the form of another Epic discussion and funded exploration of its functionality and value add) which was also canned.
How do we stop dancing around this mulberry bush and come to some agreement that wonāt mean breaking the bank?
1 Like