chieftech’s blog

Its not not about the technology | CC-BY

Better Health IT can save lives, but can we actually build these better IT systems?

AN estimated 5000 deaths, two million GP and outpatient visits and 310,000 hospital admissions could be prevented every year if an effective IT system were rolled out - saving up to $7.6 billion in health costs annually, according to an analysis for release today.
via theaustralian.com.au

I'm always a little cynical about this kind of number of crunching. I'm all for saving lives, but remain unconvinced that we can actually build the better IT systems they call for - the health industry doesn't have a great track record here after all.

However, listening to a news report on the radio today about a community protesting about the reduction of services at their rural hospital here in NSW today, I couldn't help thinking that we don't just need better technology, but better ways of managing complex systems like the public health system. We need global systems that allow local solutions, not one big homogeneous business process engine for health care.

This is because not everything in health (and other community service areas too) can be boiled down to a transaction, like medication or lab tests. Even if we can achieve it, improving health transactions with IT will only take us so far in improving patient outcomes (and ultimately saving tax payers money).

Web accessibility vs information accessibility for Government 2.0

I find the issue of Web site accessibility - particularly as part of the Gov 2.0 conversation - an interesting one. Personally I tend to look at it from the broader perspective of digital inclusion/exclusion, rather than just the mechanics of making the HTML mark up of a Web site accessible as such. WCAG 2.0 for example looks at both the mark up and the content, which makes a lot of sense in theory.

Lets now look at 'accessibility' in practice:

Now I know I'm probably going to lose a lot of karma points for mentioning this, but I couldn't help noticing a few things on the Vision Australia site.

For a start, this rather odd breadcrumb trail I came across at one point:

This was just one a number of navigational inconsistencies I came across. I also had a lot of trouble finding their RSS feed, until I stumbled back on to the home page (its not on the news pages itself and there is no auto-discovery).

And don't get me started on the lack of human friendly URLs... like http://www.visionaustralia.org/info.aspx?page=823&news=1578

Now, there is no doubt that their WCMS is probably at fault for some of these problems, but isn't it shame that such a leading example of an accessible site falls down in other areas that affect the overall user experience and the ability to access the information in it?

RSS is a particular bug bear with me as it is constantly forgotten by government organisations at all levels, but it is the corner stone of making new information easily syndicated out beyond the confines of a particular Website. I mention this because if government agencies see this as a model example, then I think they will still fail in their overall ability to deliver Government 2.0. Yes, Web accessibility itself is important - but so is information accessibility too if we are going to progress along the path of achieving full inclusion and participation. 

I think that when we talk about accessibility for Government 2.0, we should be aiming for:
  • Highest possible standards of Web accessibility (mark up and content);
  • Best possible user experience; and
  • Baked in support for content syndication and access to the PSI the site contains.
BTW As someone without vision problems (other than being a little short sighted) I do appreciate the fact that overall I have the advantage across the Web and it is very easy for me to be critical. However, the whole reason I was on the Vision Australia site was to check out the kinds of courses they run on Web accessibility. So, help me get some karma points back now by checking out their training courses and maybe even signing up for one. :-)

Comment on MS Australia's Government Affairs Blog: Public Sector Information – greater access involves greater responsibility

Picture this, it’s an emergency situation say a bushfire, and a life and death decision is made based on PSI through an online mapping device. Who is responsible?, if in the unfortunate circumstance, the information is based on untimely or inaccurate information.
via blogs.msdn.com

I gave up trying to recover my password so I could comment directly...

The flip side of this coin is imagine an emergency situation where a life and death decision is made based on incomplete, but qualified, information - a failure to warn has left organisations at fault (morally and legally) too.

However, not all information is critical, just very practical - for example, does the toilet database need to be locked down? Knowing my local area, I wouldn't use some of the toilets it recommends and I know some of the information is inaccurate!