The overall assessment from the National Audit Office is that the introduction of the Health Platform in Health Central Norway is “strongly objectionable”.
It is the strongest form of criticism they operate with, writes Sunnmørsposten, which has gained access to the report.
– Unrealistic budgeting
The list of objectionable conditions is long:
* Patient safety threatened: The introduction at St. Olav’s hospital and in Trondheim municipality has put patient safety at risk.
* Reduced efficiency: The efficiency of patient care has been reduced, not improved.
* Unrealistic budgeting: The budgets were not realistic from the start.
* Increased costs: The introduction has become more expensive than anticipated, and future costs are uncertain.
Lots of technical errors
– Journal systems should be easy to learn and use, says the report. That has not been the case at all, neither according to the National Audit Office’s investigations nor feedback from employees at the hospitals. The National Audit Office believes that things went wrong right from the first “shoveling”, long before St. Olav’s hospital put the Health Platform into use in November 2022.
According to the report, the preparations were too poor, the training was insufficient, the user-friendliness too poor, and there were many technical errors.
Communications director Eiliv Flakne at Helse Midt-Norge.
Photo: Berre / Health Central Norway
Will not comment
Eiliv Flakne, director of communications and public relations at Helse Midt-Norge, tells Adresseavisen that he will not comment on the report.
He refers to the presentation of the report on Thursday morning. The management of Helse Midt-Norge will then be available for questions.
Communications director Eiliv Flakne believes: The health platform must continue to inspire
Political editor Siv Sandvik believes: The Health Platform showcase has been nailed again
#Strongly #objectionable #dangerous #patients #National #Audit #Office
Interview with Dr. Emma Lindgren, Health IT Specialist
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Lindgren. The recent report from the National Audit Office regarding the Health Platform in Health Central Norway has been quite alarming. What is your initial reaction to their strong criticism?
Dr. Lindgren: Thank you for having me. I was not surprised by the report’s findings. The level of objection raised by the National Audit Office indicates serious systemic issues. Such robust criticism highlights that this is not just a matter of minor glitches but rather a fundamental failure in project management and execution.
Editor: The report mentions that patient safety has been threatened. Can you elaborate on how a poorly implemented health platform can endanger patients?
Dr. Lindgren: Absolutely. When a health platform is not user-friendly or accurate, it can lead to errors in patient data, delayed treatments, or even misdiagnoses. If healthcare professionals struggle to use the system, the quality of care is inevitably compromised. Patient safety should always be the top priority, and any technology that undermines this is a significant concern.
Editor: Alongside patient safety, the report also cites reduced efficiency in patient care. What are the factors contributing to this decline?
Dr. Lindgren: It’s primarily about how the software integrates into existing workflows. If a platform complicates processes rather than streamlines them, it can slow down care delivery. Additionally, if staff are not properly trained, they may take longer to complete tasks, which directly affects patient flow and service delivery.
Editor: The auditors criticized the unrealistic budgeting for this project. Why is accurate budgeting critical for health IT implementations?
Dr. Lindgren: Accurate budgeting is crucial because it sets the framework for the entire project. If costs are underrepresented, resources will be insufficient for necessary training, support, and potential upgrades. Moreover, unrealistic budgets can lead to cut corners in critical areas like testing and integration, which can result in the failures we’re seeing now.
Editor: Lastly, the report states that many technical errors were present from the start. What do you think contributed to this oversight?
Dr. Lindgren: Poor preparation and planning are often at the root of these issues. It appears that the project may have rushed through the initial phases without adequate testing and user feedback. When technical systems aren’t thoroughly vetted and refined before launch, problems inevitably arise. The emphasis on user-friendliness and proper training cannot be understated, as both play a vital role in the successful adoption of new technology.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Lindgren, for sharing your insights on this critical issue. It’s clear that addressing these concerns will be essential for the future of healthcare in Norway.
Dr. Lindgren: Thank you for having me. It’s essential we learn from these mistakes to improve patient care and support our healthcare professionals effectively.
Is crucial because it sets realistic expectations for both resource allocation and project scope. When budgets are underestimated, it can lead to compromises in quality, staffing, and training, ultimately impacting the project’s success. Additionally, unexpected costs can strain the healthcare system’s resources, diverting funds from other essential services and causing long-term issues. Health IT projects need detailed financial planning to ensure sustainability and effectiveness.
Editor: The report also points to many technical errors and insufficient user training. What recommendations would you give to address these issues moving forward?
Dr. Lindgren: First and foremost, a thorough assessment of the current system must be conducted to identify specific technical flaws and user difficulties. Followed by this, comprehensive training programs should be developed for all staff, with a focus on practical use cases. Regular feedback loops should be established to allow users to voice their concerns and suggestions for improvement. Moreover, the management should prioritize a step-by-step implementation strategy, allowing for gradual adjustments rather than overwhelming staff with an entirely new system at once.
Editor: Lastly, the communications director of Helse Midt-Norge has declined to comment until the official report presentation. How critical is it for health institutions to be transparent and responsive in situations like this?
Dr. Lindgren: Transparency is key in maintaining trust between healthcare institutions and the public. When significant issues arise, stakeholders deserve clear communication regarding challenges and solutions. An open approach fosters accountability and encourages collaboration to rectify the situation. Dealing with patient safety and quality care should always be a priority, and responsive communication reflects a commitment to those values.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Lindgren, for your valuable insights on this pressing issue. We will be sure to keep our audience informed as this situation develops.
