Page 9 - 20191216_ViewsOnConsultationDocumentEOLCare

person’s primary health clinic (State of Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services,
2018). Undoubtedly, this workflow could only be enabled with an effective medical information
system in place, which will be further discussed in session 2.3. It is therefore our view that an
issue which could be tackled at the systemic level should not be transformed into an unnecessary
barrier or demotivator to individuals or families in making end-of-life decisions.

2.3 Embracing technology in the end-of-life care model design

Consultation Question 22

Do you agree that the advance directive document may be recorded in eHRSS?

Our Hong Kong Foundation [✔] Agree [ ] Disagree

Consultation Question 25

Do you agree that the original advance directive document should still be required as
proof of a valid advance directive, even when an advance directive record could be
found in eHRSS?

Our Hong Kong Foundation [ ] Agree [✔] Disagree

At various public seminars organised by the Government on this consultation paper in Q4 2019,
we have consistently heard the Government indicate that electronic means shall not be the
solution to storage and presentation challenges of ADs. In our opinion, such views may be
worthy of reconsideration.

Utilisation of technology has been a prevalent global trend, streamlining healthcare protocols and
enhancing service efficiency. In our ‘Fit-for-Purpose: A Health System for the 21st Century’
research report, we highlighted that “well-developed information and communication
technologies and infrastructure can facilitate information exchange which further supports
integrated services” (OHKF, 2018). As echoed by the WHO, palliative care providers should
bear a responsibility for communication and information transfer. The seamless and efficient
exchange and sharing of medical records would be the key for integrating care services between
different levels and sectors of care (WHO, 2016).

9