To the Editor: Coiera accurately described some lessons from the United Kingdom’s experience with health information technology1 that should be noted by potential “fast followers”, such as Australia’s National E-Health Transition Authority (http://www.nehta.gov.au).
- 1. Coiera EW. Lessons from the NHS National Programme for IT [editorial]. Med J Aust 2007; 186: 3-4. <MJA full text>
- 2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. National Electronic Health Records Taskforce. A health information network for Australia. Canberra: DHA, 2000: 127.
- 3. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Chapter 2.3. ISBN: 1864962690. Canberra: NHMRC, 2007. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e72.pdf (accessed Apr 2007).
- 4. Boyle D, Liaw ST, Cross M, Morrison I. Can Australian GPs trust their software? Proceedings of the 14th Health Informatics Conference; 2006 Aug 20–22; Sydney, NSW.
- 5. Woolf SH, Rothermich SF, Johnson RE, Marsland DW. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1111-1118.
- 6. Stanley B, Fraser J, Cox NH. Uptake of HIV screening in genitourinary medicine after change to “opt out” consent. BMJ 2003; 326: 1174.
- 7. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, et al. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies. BMJ 2005; 331: 940.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.