
%0 Journal Article
%A Chuah, J. 
%A Fankhauser, W. 
%A Page, M. 
%A Dickson, B. 
%T 24. ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SYSTEMS IN AUSTRALIA &amp; NEW ZEALAND SH/HIV/HEP C/WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINICS 2006 - A PILOT PROJECT
%J Sexual Health
%D 2007/11/08
%V 4
%N 4
%P 293-294
%K 
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/SHV4N4AB24
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SHV4N4AB24 
%X Objective: This pilot study examined the utility pattern of electronic health record &#38; clinic management systems in the region. Methods: An anonymous one-paged survey form was sent either by email or facsimile to 100 randomly selected public &#38; private Sexual Health/ HIV/ Hep C/ Women&#39;s Health/ GP (High Case Load ) listed in the Australasian Chapter of Sexual Health Medicine Register of Public SH Clinics 2006 and the ASHM Directory 2006-2007. Responses on the clinics activities &#38; utility for 2006 were collated. Results: Response rate = 20% N = 20 clinics Mean Occasion of service (OS) = 4812 MedianOS = 4150 (Range 162-20 000) 25% of clinics provided estimated figures only Mean No. tests done = 5467 Median = 5474 (Range 224-20 000) Nature of Clinics: SH 81.3% FP/Women&#39;s Health 18.8% GP 6.3% Other 6.3% Clinic Software: SHIP 50% Other 25% Nil 25% Regular Reports: None 62.5% Daily 37.1% Weekly 6.4% Monthly 37.5% Quarterly 31.5% Annually 43.8% QA 37.5% Research 31.3% Automatic Results download: Yes 43.8% No, plan to 25% No Plan 12.5% Unsure 18.7% Hours of training provided to staff on clinic software: mean 61.8 hrs median 1 h (Range 0-500) Funding allocated for clinic IT support in 2007: None 37.5% Unsure 56.3% Yes 6.25% (Max $6000) Funding allocated for IT support in next 3-5 yrs: None 100% Discussion: Limitations of study: Small sample (100/355 clinics) and limited response rate (20%), the latter may indicate that issues of eHealth have not featured in the priority list of most clinics surveyed, as evident in the poor level of funding (&#62;90% none or unsure) and training (median 1 h for 2006) allocations. Others trends and issues include: low ratio of utility compared to the functionality of the softwares &#38; technology available; competing interests of policy &#38; privacy etc. will be discussed with recommendations proffered. 
