Response to: Electronic health records and healthcare identifiers : legislation discussion paper

Public submission # 029 to a Australian federal parliamentary committee considering proposed legislative changes to the Commonwealth's Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 and the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012.

Criminal histories of crash and non-crash involved Queensland speeding offenders: Evidence supporting the idea that we drive as we live

Evidence increasingly suggests that our behaviour on the road mirrors our behaviour across other aspects of our life. The idea that we drive as we live, described by Tillman and Hobbs more than 65 years ago when examining off-road behaviours of taxi drivers (1949), is the focus of the current paper. As part of a larger study examining the impact of penalty changes on a large cohort of Queensland speeding offenders, criminal (lifetime) and crash history (10 year period) data for a sub-sample of 1000 offenders were obtained. Based on the ‘drive as we live’ maxim, it was hypothesised that crash-involved speeding offenders would be more likely to have a criminal history than non-crash involved offenders. Overall, only 30% of speeding offenders had a criminal history. However, crash-involved offenders were significantly more likely to have a criminal history (49.4%) than non-crash involved offenders (28.6%), supporting the hypothesis. Furthermore, those deemed ‘most at fault’ in a crash were the group most likely to have at least one criminal offence (52.2%). When compared to the non-crash involved offenders, those deemed ‘not most at fault’ in a crash were also more likely to have had at least one criminal offence (46.5%). Therefore, when compared to non-crash involved speeding offenders, those offenders involved in a crash were more likely to have been convicted of at least one criminal offence, irrespective of whether they were deemed ‘most at fault’ in that crash. Implications for traffic offender management and policing are discussed.

Personal health records as sources of productivity evidence

Capturing data from various data repositories and integrating them for productivity improvements is common in modern business organisations. With the well-accepted concept of achieving positive gains through investment in employee health and wellness, organisations have started to capture both employee health and non-health data as Employer Sponsored electronic Personal Health Records (ESPHRs). However, non-health related data in ESPHRs has hardly been taken into consideration with outcomes such as employee productivity potentially being suited for further validation and stimulation of ESPHR usage. Here we analyse selected employee demographic information (age, gender, marital status, and job grade) and health-related outcomes (absenteeism and presenteeism) of employees for evidence-based decision making. Our study considered demographic and health-related outcomes of 700 employees. Surprisingly, the analysis shows that employees with high sick leave rates are also high performers. A factor analysis shows 92% of the variance in the data can be explained by three factors, with the job grade capable of explaining 62% of the variance. Work responsibilities may drive employees to maintain high work performance despite signs of sickness, so ESPHRs should focus attention on high performers. This finding suggests new ways of extracting value from ESPHRs to support organisational health and wellness management to help assure sustainability in organisational productivity.

Criminal intent

The High Court recently heard submissions of counsel in Zaburoni v The Queen. This case concerns an appeal against conviction for transmitting a serious disease with intent under section 317(b) and (e) of the Queensland Criminal Code. It raises important issues about the meaning of intent and how intent can be proven in Queensland criminal offences. Since intent is an element of so many of the more serious crimes, it is surprising to see that the courts, both in England and Australia, continue to grapple with how best to define it. In murder, for example, the accused is potentially going to be locked up for a very long time, so it is essential that the courts and juries are very clear on what intent actually means, so that they can be confident in correctly finding that it was present on the facts of the case.