Katy Gallagher presides over industrial scale data fraud because she cares OK?

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

4 words/ 2 names: Cornelia Rau, Amanda Vanstone.

The first name belongs to a mad cow who’s madder than a cut snake and whose madness has cost the Australian taxpayer millions.

The second name belongs to somebody who demonstrated more integrity than any other politician I can think of ever having done – ref. “Peter Mackay, attorney-general’s, leak of documents”.

So it’s ok for the government to lock people up without any sort of judicial review simply because they have a serious mental illness?

She decided to give them a fake name and tell them she was a German tourist from Munich, with no papers. So she was detained. She was provided with consular assistance. Nobody could identify her.

Blaming this on anybody but herself is stupid, but to be expected from nanny-state lefties who seem to deny the whole concept of personal responsibility.

What happened to her after she was let out?

She ended up locked up in a prison in the middle-east, after pulling her cut-snake impressions over there, costing the Australian taxpayer yet more money to sort out.

That has shut them up Henry. Another example of how facts can get in the way of a good story.

Bullshit Dungfungus. It’s because it’s not worth arguing with people who live on a different plane of reality to the rest of us.

The issue with the detention centres as they operated under Vanstone is that there was no oversight or review once people got caught up in the system. Mental health checks were virtually non-existent and people who were clearly mentally ill were left to rot in a system without access to mental healthcare or judicial review of their detention.

Two points Jethro
1. How does one tell clearly that someone has a mental illness
2. Mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating Labor government so how can Amanda Vanstone be responsible?
I’ll admit I am a bit of a bullshitter Jethro (as you have labelled me), but sometimes I like to hear a true professional so please hurry up and give me your response.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

4 words/ 2 names: Cornelia Rau, Amanda Vanstone.

The first name belongs to a mad cow who’s madder than a cut snake and whose madness has cost the Australian taxpayer millions.

The second name belongs to somebody who demonstrated more integrity than any other politician I can think of ever having done – ref. “Peter Mackay, attorney-general’s, leak of documents”.

So it’s ok for the government to lock people up without any sort of judicial review simply because they have a serious mental illness?

She decided to give them a fake name and tell them she was a German tourist from Munich, with no papers. So she was detained. She was provided with consular assistance. Nobody could identify her.

Blaming this on anybody but herself is stupid, but to be expected from nanny-state lefties who seem to deny the whole concept of personal responsibility.

What happened to her after she was let out?

She ended up locked up in a prison in the middle-east, after pulling her cut-snake impressions over there, costing the Australian taxpayer yet more money to sort out.

That has shut them up Henry. Another example of how facts can get in the way of a good story.

Bullshit Dungfungus. It’s because it’s not worth arguing with people who live on a different plane of reality to the rest of us.

The issue with the detention centres as they operated under Vanstone is that there was no oversight or review once people got caught up in the system. Mental health checks were virtually non-existent and people who were clearly mentally ill were left to rot in a system without access to mental healthcare or judicial review of their detention.

dpm said :

I think it once again comes down to poor funding in healthcare. I’ve worked briefly at TCH so am aware, for example, that the path. system logs every access to a pts. path. results and these accesses are shown right there on the page so you know which staff have viewed them. Now that system is quite highly logged! Do ED staff use a generic logon for that system? I know I had my own logon for that system and would’ve got my arse kicked for trying to use someone else’s! ED may be different due to time? If so, that’s more security that doesn’t fit its use and is bypassed?

No, as (overly verbosely) mentioned earlier, the pathology, radiology and online medical record systems must be accessed via your own username and password, and are logged and tracked. This is regardless of whether you are logged onto your own computer with your own username, or a generic communal terminal.

EDIS is different in that it’s always had only generic logins (to my knowledge), which many people probably didn’t ever know, because the program is almost never logged out in the ED.

You talk about other data being more 'potentially exploitable' but if these data can be used for funding allocations, then it shows that they are not only potentially exploitable, but already have been exploited (even though no additional money may have been allocated based on the 'changes'?).

Perhaps it’s useful to hypothesise as to who’s likely to exploit what information. Clinicians have little, if any, reason to fiddle waiting times on EDIS, but could potentially breach confidentiality with regards to patient records. Administrators, on the other hand, who live and die by the stats, have little interest in medical or nursing data, but a great interest in waiting times and the like. As such, perhaps it would be a good idea to put an electronic tag onto what information the administrators are accessing, and why? Similar such measures already exist to protect patient confidentiality – clinicians who access patient records and results are always logged and tracked, and will be audited if there are any perceived breaches. Who’s keeping a similar eye on what the managers and administrators are doing? The recent events at TCH would suggest that nobody is.

gun street girl said :

Antagonist said :

gun street girl said :

dpm said :

I also note that they still claim they won’t be able to use individual logons. How is this possible??? I’m assuming then that no hospital has a system that logs transactions from > 1 person if we can’t get one set up here?

I’ve seen a lot of people asking the same question – it appears that there’s not a lot of understanding as to how the computers in the hospital are used and accessed. So here goes:

(snip)

Probably more information than you really wanted, but there you go.

So why can’t these computers have a swipe card that shows who is making each entry?

Given the general Dickensian nature of the whole computer system of TCH (and the speed – or lack thereof – of effective and bug proof improvements), I daresay swipe cards are far too twentieth century to fit in with the current standard of technological excellence. 😉

I think it once again comes down to poor funding in healthcare. I’ve worked briefly at TCH so am aware, for example, that the path. system logs every access to a pts. path. results and these accesses are shown right there on the page so you know which staff have viewed them. Now that system is quite highly logged! Do ED staff use a generic logon for that system? I know I had my own logon for that system and would’ve got my arse kicked for trying to use someone else’s! ED may be different due to time? If so, that’s more security that doesn’t fit its use and is bypassed?
I am also aware that each staff member there has a proximity ID card. As the healthcare budget is an issue (and this whole debacle really has nothing to do with a pts. actual care, so money would be better spent elsewhere), I’d suggest the Govt set up a competition to get pimply uni students to whip up an ED pt. tracking system that utilises a few <$100 card readers. Access to the software (not the PC, which could still use a generic logon if need be) would be granted (and logged) when you waved your card, like when you enter the staff car park there. The system wouldn't need to grant you access for viewing records (much like the treating team can read their pts. paper records without 'logging'), but if you were writing, it would require a swipe (much like when you write in a pts. notes, you sign and date it!).
You talk about other data being more 'potentially exploitable' but if these data can be used for funding allocations, then it shows that they are not only potentially exploitable, but already have been exploited (even though no additional money may have been allocated based on the 'changes'?).
Having worked in both IT and healthcare, it's sad and frustrating when you see sh1t computer (and paper) systems, which the healthcare environment is full of!
Technically, the current system has two levels to log access, but its design doesn't fit the real-time need so they are bypassed. It shouldn't be hard to investigate what the users (and auditors) actually need it to do in reality, and make something that works best for everyone?

and yet I can log in as Admin on my office network, create a new account under someone’s name, set their accesses and a requirement for them to change password as soon as they logon for the first time – in as much time as it has taken me to type this post.

Antagonist said :

gun street girl said :

dpm said :

I also note that they still claim they won’t be able to use individual logons. How is this possible??? I’m assuming then that no hospital has a system that logs transactions from > 1 person if we can’t get one set up here?

I’ve seen a lot of people asking the same question – it appears that there’s not a lot of understanding as to how the computers in the hospital are used and accessed. So here goes:

(snip)

Probably more information than you really wanted, but there you go.

So why can’t these computers have a swipe card that shows who is making each entry?

Given the general Dickensian nature of the whole computer system of TCH (and the speed – or lack thereof – of effective and bug proof improvements), I daresay swipe cards are far too twentieth century to fit in with the current standard of technological excellence. 😉

gun street girl said :

dpm said :

I also note that they still claim they won’t be able to use individual logons. How is this possible??? I’m assuming then that no hospital has a system that logs transactions from > 1 person if we can’t get one set up here?

I’ve seen a lot of people asking the same question – it appears that there’s not a lot of understanding as to how the computers in the hospital are used and accessed. So here goes:

(snip)

Probably more information than you really wanted, but there you go.

So why can’t these computers have a swipe card that shows who is making each entry?

A swipe of the card unlocks the terminal. The system records the cardholders details as the person who is accessing/changing data, much like most payroll systems. Press a button (say F10) to log user off and lock the terminal, which is ready for the next person to come along and swipe their access card. It would not take much in the way of some hardware and a few software mods. And probably cheaper than these audits, inquiries etc.

dpm said :

I also note that they still claim they won’t be able to use individual logons. How is this possible??? I’m assuming then that no hospital has a system that logs transactions from > 1 person if we can’t get one set up here?

I’ve seen a lot of people asking the same question – it appears that there’s not a lot of understanding as to how the computers in the hospital are used and accessed. So here goes:

Most doctors and nurses in the hospital don’t have their own computer, as most don’t work from a fixed office, and most don’t spend great slabs of time in front of a computer screen (as opposed to an office worker, say). All of the terminals you see in the ED and on the wards (take a look around next time you’re there) don’t belong to anyone in particular; they are “go to” communal computers from which information can be accessed at will. All manner of staff use them: doctors, nurses, allied health. The logins to the computers themselves are generic, according to their location (e.g. a ward computer will have a login name pertaining to the ward itself, with a generic password which is openly known). TCH staff have their own logins to any computer in the hospital, but most will use the generic ward logins as there is no advantage to logging in as yourself (unless you want to access work email) – all clinical data programs are available via the generic logins.

Generic logins are also far more convenient, as these computer terminals are in almost constant use. It’s easier to have a computer permanently logged in, rather than having literally scores of people logging in and out each day, every time they want to look up a test result or access the intranet (etc). The time spent on the computers is generally spent in small periods – you might grab five minutes here, five minutes there – and in between that time, half a dozen other people might use the same terminal for similar such tasks.

EDIS is the software used in the emergency department to record and track patients in that department. It is accessed on all computer terminals in the ED, as well as a select few outside the department. A computer must first be logged on as per above, and then EDIS is accessed as a separate program with another login. EDIS is *always* active in the ED – all their computer terminals are turned on, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because the department never closes down. EDIS remains open throughout all the shifts, as it’s essentially an ongoing live update that maps the department’s activity. At a glance, you can get an idea as to how many patients are in the department, where they are physically, what is wrong with them, and which clinicians are looking after them (and what the clinical plan and destination is). The program itself is opened (and stays open) via a generic login of its own – until now, there has been no gain to logging in and out every time you want to glance at EDIS (and it’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t a clinician who took advantage of the generic login system).

More sensitive, potentially exploitable material, such as online medical records and results, are already logged, tracked and easily identified, because they aren’t stored in EDIS – they are accessed via personal logins to other programs. You MUST use a personal login to access this sort of data, regardless of whether the computer terminal is logged in on a generic ward or ED login or not.

Probably more information than you really wanted, but there you go.

Hmmm, I see they are now scoping for new ways to adjust the wait time books:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/no-agreed-definitions-for-hospital-wait-times-20120723-22kza.html

If all jurisdictions have a different system of measuring wait time, why don’t we just pick the system that gives the lowest time possible? I can see it now, you’ll walk into ED, a general staff member will say ‘hi’, and mark you off as being ‘attended to’ – in record time! Hahahaha!

I also note that they still claim they won’t be able to use individual logons. How is this possible??? I’m assuming then that no hospital has a system that logs transactions from > 1 person if we can’t get one set up here?

Chop71 said :

I love this line

I’m not doing my job to be “popular”. I do my job because I …… can lie to the public (or pay others to lie for me)

A real leader would take a policy to the October Election about what they are going to do about this. Katy will just say: “Trust me with another 4 years. It will all be OK. There are no other scandals not yet exposed.”