How PCEHR Implementation Influences Countries’ Medical Systems

Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record

by Shamsul
Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record
Spread the love to Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

How PCEHR Implementation Influences Countries’ Medical Systems

The National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) has given a new definition upon previously called HER into PCEHR. It stands out from A Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record, which has the same function as EHR. PCHER is an electronic record of one’s medical history, which is recorded and shared in a secure network system. This secured information is only accessible to the authorized medical providers and the individual, in which the medical providers can deliver correct decisions related to the individual’s treatment and required procedures related to their health condition. But, the individual can still give additional information on the PCEHR based on their current health.

Remember that EHR and PCEHR are two different matters though using both terms is mostly transposable. Go on reading this report for a better understanding of the difference between the two terms.


How EHR and PCEHR Relate to Each Other 

EHR and PCEHR share similar characteristics, though each is categorized as a different system of records. Yet, both of them still relate to each other.

One major drawback of EHR is its inability to involve important information about a user or a patient. Definitely, it is the opposite with the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, outlining that the patient or users should be the most important individual in all kinds of health care systems. A patient should be able to ask for help and further medical advice from specialists, physicians, or other medical experts after treatment and diagnosis. EHR collects all data and information from various sources though it cannot get the exact data from the user or the patient.

The previous aims of EHR were to increase and promote patient quality, though it should have addressed the importance of patient input. EHR was only accessible to the medical providers instead of the patients or users though they should have contributed their health condition information to their medical providers. Some agree with this concept because it relates to the patient’s privacy though it is against the basic outline of the patient’s rights.

Such a concept still applies to most medical record systems in third-world countries. But developed countries, including Australia, have started to use the PCEHR concept. This is because PCEHR has greater advantages, as compared to EHR. PCEHR allows patients and their medical advisers to have open communication so that patients can better understand their medical records and their self-management related to them. Patients can edit or add some important information related to their health condition.

So, PCEHR is the advanced form of EHR in which its design is notably the revision of a much better system than EHR. PCEHR’s main focus is the user’s or patients’ importance. On the other hand, EHR only emphasizes on medical hub center of the medical hub. However, it was considered an excellent medical record so that all patients did not worry too much about their conditions and could keep their records secure. Both PCEHR and EHR actually share the same function though each of them focuses on different subjects. The basic relation between the two is that the systems which are applied on PCEHR will not substitute other systems on medical systems records. Most government institutions from developed countries prefer to extend the use of PCEHR through the old method; EHR remains the only medical record system that medical advisers prefer.


Basic Approach of PCEHR System

Some countries have considered PCEHR as the best medical record system as they have successfully implemented it, with the endorsement of the federal government or some health organization. PCEHR was based on the ‘Concept of Operations’ draft, launched in June 2012 by NEHTA.

Australia is one of several highly developed countries which applied PCEHR after the $466.7 million investment from The Australian Federal Government in 2010. The system registration and participation currently have been used under very strong control by the federal government. The application of the system has enabled all citizens of Australia to view important information about their health condition in a secure view.

The system allows all Australians to share their information with reliable medical organizations to access the information online. It can deliver easier healthcare decisions by authorized medical professionals so that patients can get better treatments for their health conditions.

Most Australians believe that PCEHR will be implemented in the next few years. Yet, some still launch criticism of the implementation of the National PCEHR. It is due to the ‘rush out’ application which may not work well and meet any expectation that NEHTA determines. The President of the Medical Software Industry Association, Jon Hughes, criticized the program’s launching as inappropriate when it relates to its functionalities. Besides, the Australian Medical Association has delivered a statement that underlined that the applied PCEHR could be a bogus concurrence when it fails to combine the online record system with medical advisers’ software.

Yet, there is another important matter related to the PCEHR implementation. The Senate Community Affairs Committee, the Council of Australian Governments, the Federal Health Department, and Aus Tender have found out that the records analysis reached $760 million from its initial investment, which was $466.7 million from the Federal Government. The significant increase—which rea

Ches for about three hundred million dollars—has launched several opinions, which state that the national PCEHR implementation may be ineffective. This is because NEHTA received the entire initial investment on the first day of the PCEHR implementation.


Indivo – Norway

There is a short description of Indivo. Before continuing this essay, it should be noted that Indivo is unrelated to a Norwegian Health Institution or any other organization from the country. It is different from the proposed system name, which has been developed by the Norwegian Institutions, too. It is presently a multi-party project among three big medical institutions. They are Children’s Hospital Boston, MIT, and Harvard School of Medicine. Indigo has a system similar to PCEHR for complementing other applications from third parties and enhancing their functions and performance.

A slight difference between Indivo and PCEHR is that everyone can contribute to an individual’s medical records. Either they are individuals, governmental authorities, or any organization. They can even change the system when necessary, though there should be some agreements that state that there will be no incentive in the form of materialistic and commercial will exchange for the activities.

The Norwegian has maneuvered some plans continually for the standardization of guidelines and practices for clinical-related matters strategically since 2007. It is the main reason for both Social Care (KITHH) and Norwegian Health Informatics Authorities (NHIA) development. KITHH allowed the outline for implementing national standardization. Yet, in turn, it also allowed the integration possibility of the Indivo PCEHR system. Through both frameworks, there will be a percentage of Norway’s PCEHR system once it matches the current Hodemelding method. It becomes ongoing Norway’s Health sector of communication infrastructure.

So far, there is no schedule for the HER implementation for Norway’s Health Care Reform. Yet, it is evident through some documents that there will be some determined strategies for enabling the technology in the future. The project of Indivo remains in the speculative phase. It means some matters related to the use or implementation and use are still unpredictable.


NPÖ – Sweden

Sweden is another developed country that has implemented the outlines of the EHR system since 2010. It is called National Patient Overview (NPO). Based on Barcelona’s World of Health IT 2010, the Swedish Federal Government and affiliated health organizations have been developing the system slowly. Yet, the system has been fully implemented at the end of 2012. NPO provides some tools related to some points below:

  • Summaries of patient’s health condition
  • Complete information about the diagnosis
  • History of medication progress
  • Care services

“The system is already improving patient safety, shortening lead times and preventing the unnecessary transport,” stated Britt Marie, a person who deals with NPO operations in Örebro. Fortunately, this system implementation has been great though there were some issues related to the development of the program.

“Policy makers and implementers spent a year establishing the legal context, patient consent and the IT infrastructure for NPS. A company called Tieto was selected as the prime contractor, implementing and hosting the service using InterSystems Healthcare information exchange platform,” stated

All in all, the project is now at the stage of successfully implemented, as compared to other developed countries.


Future Implementation Schemes of PCEHR and HER

Let’s discuss the future implementation scheme of PCEHR and EHR from a more advanced point of view. The full implementation of PCEHR and EHR systems does not meet most people’s expectations, though there are still some exceptions. Several unidentified aspects led to some improperly addressed considerations about both systems’ implementation.


The Enhanced Use and Purpose of PCEHR and EHR

So far, the rate of EHR implementation in hospitals is slow. However, this system is effective enough in helping all medical practices as well as other kinds of additional analysis related to diagnosis and different types of medical treatments. It is shown that only ten percent of the hospital in the United States applied EHR systems in 2009, and less than two percent of them used the system comprehensively. It is due to the EHR’s system roll-out, which did not meet the basic standards of medical purposes. The essential standardization strictly obstructed EHR implementation, only providing a declaration of basic EHR stage functionality. All governmental authorities and other health organizations must ensure that the desired functionality can be implemented well so the system can work properly.


Presenting Interoperability

Other important aspects of enabling the EHR system are integrating and operating it seamlessly. The ongoing design of EHR design is managed at shallow application because there need to be more guidelines for formalized systems. It leads to the absence of proper EHR applications in which the hospital network infrastructure must be more supportive. People may not expect too much about existing interoperability in the future.


Formal Standard

In general, there were so many reasons why some mismatched standards have become the major obstacle in the implementation of both EHR and PCEHR. The author has concluded that when the health factor in any country needs to have a suitable transition method into an EHR system, they should pay attention to the compatibility issue, which relates a lot to the national stage. The related government and health organizations should have proper procedures and guidelines for implementing an EHR.


Need Help or Advice in Content Management:

Would you like more advice? Do you have good practices to share? Express yourself in the comments.

Also, if you want help in writing content to drive more traffic and boost conversions, please get in touch through Contact our team.

Do you want help writing quality content, driving traffic to your website, and boosting conversions? You can contact me through my profile also. I always prefer to work through Wiselancer for smooth functioning. Here you pay safely and securely. 

Read More:




Spread the love to Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

You may also like