On 9 September, the same day the WA Government announced a new dedicated Women and Babies Health Service, the Australian Medical Association (WA) said the state government’s decision not to deliver genuine tri-location of tertiary adult, paediatric, obstetric and neonatal services “remains a major missed opportunity for Western Australian families”. AMA (WA) President Dr Kyle Hoath welcomed the creation of a dedicated Women and Babies Health Service, saying clearer accountability across women’s, newborn and children’s health services had the potential to improve coordination and continuity of care. “Bringing women’s, newborn and children’s health services together under a single Health Service Provider has the potential to improve coordination across services that are currently delivered through different sites and organisational structures,” Hoath said. “Patients should experience one health system, not a collection of organisational boundaries.” However, Hoath also said: “A new Health Service Provider may improve coordination, but it cannot reproduce the clinical advantages of having tertiary adult, paediatric, obstetric and neonatal services located together.” The AMA (WA) said it has consistently advocated for a tri-located model and maintains that clinical requirements should determine the location of the Women and Babies Hospital, adding that it remains concerned that mothers, babies and specialist teams will continue to be spread across multiple sites. “World-class maternity care means tertiary adult, paediatric, obstetric and neonatal services located together. That is not what Western Australia will have under the current model,” Hoath said. “Infrastructure and workforce constraints may help explain the government’s decision, but they do not overturn the clinical advantages of tri-location,” Hoath said. “A mother should not have to choose between receiving proper postnatal care and being close to a critically ill baby.” Hoath also said: “The government’s own report acknowledges that tri-location remains the best way of delivering these services,” saying that the state government’s own consultation process confirmed clinicians preferred a comprehensive tertiary maternity service at the QEII Medical Centre. The state government’s announcement of improved transfer arrangements and enhanced paediatric capability at Fiona Stanley Hospital was acknowledged by Hoath, yet he also said mitigation measures should not be confused with solving the underlying problem. “A dedicated neonatal transfer service is important and we welcome that investment,” Hoath said. “But a transfer is still a transfer. The proposed mitigations are necessary, but they do not replicate the benefits of immediate physical proximity between specialist teams.” The AMA (WA) said it would closely scrutinise the implementation of the state government’s proposed safeguards, including neonatal transfer arrangements, paediatric services, postnatal support and clinical governance frameworks. The AMA (WA) also used its statement to urge the state government to keep open a pathway for future maternity services at the QEII Medical Centre precinct. “What we’re asking for is a genuine commitment to continue exploring what can be achieved at QEII in the future,” Hoath said. “The government has recognised the constraints of today. What we have not yet seen is a commitment to solve this problem for the next generation of Western Australian families.” Additional maternity capacity in Perth’s northern suburbs was supported by the AMA (WA); however, it was also said that the proposed expansion of Osborne Park Hospital must be backed by appropriate emergency pathways, specialist support services, workforce planning and clinical governance. “More maternity capacity is important, but increased capacity must also be safe capacity,” Hoath said. “Every commitment must have funding, staff, a deadline and an accountable clinical leader.” Image: AMA (WA) President Dr Kyle Hoath at a press conference. Source: AMA (WA)

Artificial intelligence is changing health care at remarkable speed. Hospitals can now draw on near-real-time data to detect deterioration, flag possible sepsis, anticipate demand and identify medication risks. Generative AI can summarise notes, draft discharge information and support clinical documentation. These are genuine advances. Yet a harder question remains: has AI changed health care itself, or merely given us faster tools with potential for improvement? My assessment is that AI has altered the means of improvement more than the outcomes. It is helping health services move from periodic measurement towards continuous sensing, and from retrospective dashboards towards prediction and decision support. But continuous sensing does not automatically produce continuous improvement, and prediction is not prevention. An alert only helps when somebody can act on it. A deterioration score needs a clear response pathway, available staff, agreed escalation criteria and accountability. Without these foundations, more alerts can mean more noise, workload and fatigue. A technically accurate model that does not fit clinical workflow may be inert; at worst, it may distract clinicians or create false reassurance. The same principle applies to learning health systems. Data can reveal variation and feed lessons back into practice, but software alone does not create a system that learns. That requires leaders who support transparency, teams with time and skills to improve care, useful feedback loops and a culture that can examine failure without blame. AI tends to amplify the strengths and weaknesses already present in an organisation. It also brings new risks. Algorithms can perform differently across populations, become less reliable as clinical practice changes, or reproduce inequities hidden in historical data. Generative systems can produce fluent but incorrect answers. Clinicians may over-rely on automated recommendations, while patients may reasonably wonder who is accountable when the technology is wrong. Governance is therefore not an administrative extra. Every AI-enabled service should have a named owner, documented purpose, defined response pathway and measures of benefit and harm. Performance should be tested across relevant patient groups and monitored after deployment for bias, errors and drift. Staff need enough practical AI literacy to understand what a system does, what it does not do and when its output should be questioned or overridden. Consider stroke triage or sepsis warning systems. AI may identify a time-critical patient earlier, but benefit follows only if imaging is available, the right team receives the alert, transfer arrangements work and treatment begins promptly. False positives can increase workload; false negatives can encourage misplaced confidence. The important measure is therefore not simply whether the algorithm predicts accurately in a test dataset. It is whether the whole service responds more quickly and appropriately, produces better patient outcomes, avoids preventable harm and does so fairly across the population it serves. Health services should also evaluate AI with the same discipline expected of other clinical interventions. Where feasible, we should compare outcomes before and after implementation, use control groups or staged rollouts, and specify in advance what success will look like. Models that do not deliver net benefit should be changed or retired. The aim is not to accumulate impressive AI pilots, but to improve care reliably and at scale. For hospital leaders, the near-term agenda is practical: choose high-value problems; design the workflow and response system before deployment; involve clinicians, patients, improvement specialists and technical teams from the outset; make equity a measured outcome; and invest in implementation capability and education. AI is a powerful ingredient, not the recipe. Safer, fairer and more reliable care will still depend on people, organisational learning and disciplined redesign. The healthcare dog must wag the AI tail, and not the other way around. Based on: Braithwaite J. 2026. Artificial intelligence, data science and healthcare improvement: what has actually changed and has it changed enough? BMJ Innovations. Published online 17 August 2026. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2026-001608 *Professor Jeffrey Braithwaite is Founding Director of the Australian Institute of Health Innovation at Macquarie University and Director of the Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science. He is Chair of the International Academy of Quality and Safety. Top image credit: iStock.com/Drazen Zigic

An evidence-based clinical pathway for identifying and managing fear of recurrence has been developed by researchers from the Daffodil Centre, a partnership between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney, in collaboration with the McGrath Foundation and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Designed as an online training module for healthcare professionals to help cancer survivors manage anxieties around fear of recurrence, it includes practical guidance, videos and culturally diverse case studies. Video credit: The Daffodil Centre, a partnership between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney. “Initiatives like this help strengthen survivorship care by giving health professionals the tools and confidence to better support patients experiencing fear of recurrence,” said Dr Vanessa Johnston, Clinical Director of Cancer Information and Support Services at Cancer Council NSW. “With more people surviving cancer than ever before, it is important that people impacted by cancer have access to evidence-based information, practical support and high-quality care both during and after cancer treatment.” The pathway is available nationally through eviQ Education at education.eviq.org.au/courses/addressing-fear-of-cancer-recurrence-in-clinical-p. Top image credit: iStock.com/monkeybusinessimages

This video explains an evidence-based clinical pathway to help healthcare professionals identify and manage fear of cancer recurrence. You can learn more about the pathway here. Video credit: The Daffodil Centre, a partnership between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney

This year’s Australian Infectious Diseases Research Centre Eureka Prize for Infectious Diseases Research went to the Women’s Microbiome Innovation Group for their discovery that bacterial vaginosis (BV), which affects one in four women worldwide, is sexually transmitted. The award is one of several categories in the Australian Museum’s 2026 Eureka Prizes, an annual recognition of excellence across research and innovation, leadership, science engagement and school science. The StepUp trial by Monash University and The Alfred showed treating male partners reduces BV recurrence in women by more than 60%, a finding that, Monash said, has reshaped international thinking on the condition. Partner treatment is transforming clinical practice for BV, an infection associated with serious reproductive complications such as preterm birth and miscarriage, Monash added. L–R: Dr Erica Plummer, Professor Catriona Bradshaw and Dr Lenka Vodstrcil. Credit: Monash University The trial was completed in 2025 by Professor Catriona Bradshaw, Dr Lenka Vodstrcil and Dr Erica Plummer and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2405404), with Bradshaw saying that her team are now focused on the next steps. “We are now looking at the male genital microbiome to figure out how we can prevent women from acquiring BV in the first place,” Bradshaw said. “We’re also studying the small group of women who weren’t cured by partner treatment, aiming to develop more targeted and effective treatment options for them.” Believing that a better understanding of the vaginal and penile microbiomes could reshape future sexual and reproductive health, Plummer said: “Our findings have already demonstrated that male partners play a critical role in recurrence, fundamentally changing how clinicians approach treatment.” While Vodstrcil noted that the team’s work has shown that male partner treatment is highly acceptable and cost-effective in the Australian healthcare setting, supporting changes to national guidelines. “Our trial proved that male partners are key to improving BV cure, and this strategy is transforming global practice and policy.” L–R: Dr Lenka Vodstrcil, Dr Erica Plummer and Professor Catriona Bradshaw. Credit: Monash University You can learn more about the StepUp trial at www.mshc.org.au/research/research-studies/stepup-study. Top image: L–R: Dr Erica Plummer, Dr Lenka Vodstrcil and Professor Catriona Bradshaw. Credit: Monash University

Between mid-2025 and mid-2026 the number of patients stranded in state hospitals waiting for Commonwealth Government aged care placements has increased from over 2700 to over 3600. When patients are unable to be discharged to appropriate care, beds in wards cannot be used, surgeries cannot be undertaken and patients wait longer in EDs, a NSW Minister for Health statement said, with the accessibility of aged care services resting with the Commonwealth in Australia’s joint funded health system. Public hospitals were not designed as alternatives or substitutes to aged care facilities, the statement added, with patients waiting indefinitely in hospital facing poorer prospects for recovery. There are almost 100,000 people waiting for Support at Home packages. Across the jurisdictions, all except the Northern Territory saw an increase, with the figures as follows, along with comments from the respective health ministers: Queensland: from 1076 to 1272 “Queensland remains ground zero for stranded older patients, with more than 1270 stuck in our hospitals and interim care through no fault of their own,” Queensland Minister for Health Tim Nicholls said. “Our message has been very loud and clear and that is that the Commonwealth needs to honour its commitments and invest in more aged care supports in Queensland, and across the country. These vulnerable patients need to be moved out of our busy, noisy hospitals and into more appropriate settings so they can get the care they deserve.” New South Wales: from 750 to 1027 “I am concerned the prevalence of bed block is accelerating and is far beyond sustainable,” NSW Minister for Health and Chair of the Health Ministers Meeting Ryan Park said. “We acknowledge the Commonwealth has pledged investment into aged care builds, but we know that can take some time. We will work constructively with the Commonwealth including on issues such as seeing a more immediate response to this crisis, including the delivery of more Commonwealth Support at Home packages.” South Australia: from 245 to 476 “Nationally, we need an additional 10,000 aged care beds each year — last year we had just 800. And this crisis is only going to get worse with current projections showing the total population aged over 70 in South Australia will nearly double over the next 30 years — from 226,568 to 441,395. There are currently 476 older South Australians who are ready to leave hospital but cannot access an aged care placement. That’s up from 60 in late 2022. That number of aged care patients waiting for a bed is about the same as the number of patients at the Lyell McEwin hospital — one of our largest metro hospitals,” SA Minister for Health Blair Boyer said. “If we were able to get them into an aged care bed, it would free up a whole hospital so we could treat those patients that need it. This is putting a huge demand on our healthcare system as the new beds we’ve added to the system are being taking up by aged care patients. Older people should not have to spend weeks, months, or even years in some cases, in hospital waiting for aged care support — and we need the federal government to act now.” Western Australia: from 230 to 423 “The number of older Australians awaiting aged care in public hospital beds during winter reached worrying new heights in Western Australia,” WA Minister for Health Meredith Hammat said. “That’s about 100 more than we had 12 months ago, and another 100 fewer beds available for acutely unwell patients. Older Western Australians deserve a more dignified care setting when they’ve been cleared for discharge.” Victoria: from 226 to 302 “Every older Victorian deserves to age with dignity — and no one should stay in hospital longer than they need to,” Victoria Minister for Health Ingrid Stitt said. “We’ll continue to advocate strongly to the Commonwealth to ensure its aged care reforms are properly funded and no Victorian misses out.” Australian Capital Territory: from 78 to 80 “Older Australians should not have to spend extended periods in hospital when their care needs could be better met in the community or in residential aged care,” ACT Minister for Health Dr Marisa Paterson said. “These delays are difficult for patients and their loved ones and contribute to increasing pressure across the broader health system. People deserve timely access to the right care in the right setting, and we will continue engaging with our federal counterparts to help make that a reality.” Tasmania: from 55 to 78 “Too many Tasmanians remain stuck in our hospitals, sometimes for weeks and even months at a time, because the federal government has not provided them with the aged care or NDIS supports needed,” Tasmania Minister for Health Bridget Archer said. “These Tasmanians are not just statistics, they are Tasmanians who deserve dignity, compassion and a proper place to recover. While the Tasmanian Government will always provide high-quality care, the ongoing lack of leadership and support from the federal government is unacceptable.” Northern Territory: from 76 to 74 “The NT Government is delivering more beds, more nurses, and more equipment in a record NT Health budget with one new ward opening this week and another later this year to help deal with capacity issues,” NT Minister for Health Steve Edgington said. “Our hospital pressures are exacerbated by Commonwealth failure to invest in aged care fast enough as we wait for a promised new facility in the Top End. We could potentially free up another 70 beds and this would make a significant difference to bed block, pressure in the ED and the health system in general in the Territory.” Image credit: iStock.com/SDI Productions

More than $5.3 million for almost 3600 underpaid direct care employees — including personal care workers, enrolled and registered nurses, and assistants in nursing — working for aged care businesses has been recovered following Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) investigations. Of the 22 aged care businesses providing residential aged care and home care that the FWO investigated, 13 were found to be non-compliant with workplace laws in one or more areas, eight were compliant and one business remains under investigation. Employees had been underpaid by all 13 non-compliant aged care providers, with six residential aged care providers back-paying more than $2.17 million to 2338 employees and seven home care providers back-paying more than $3.13 million to 1253 employees. A number of aged care providers that are headquartered in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia were investigated, with investigations covering both metropolitan and regional areas and many of the investigated employers operating in multiple states. The back-payments to workers came after the FWO issued a total of 16 Compliance Notices to the 13 employers. A combined $4620 in fines was also paid by two residential care providers for record-keeping and payslip breaches. Underpayment of minimum rates of pay, underpayment or non-payment of broken shift entitlements, non-payment for minimum engagement periods, and underpayment of overtime were the most common contraventions, FWO said, with the average overall underpayment per employee was $1478. Other contraventions involved breaching record-keeping and payslip requirements and not providing a Fair Work Information Statement to all employees. One provider also advertised below-minimum rates of pay. “Aged care providers need to make sure their payroll systems are fit-for-purpose and payroll staff are properly trained to make sure employees are paid for every dollar they’re entitled to,” Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth said. “The FWO calls upon aged care providers to invest in strengthening their payroll and rostering systems and to undertake their own, regular wage compliance audits — or potentially face big back-pay bills.” Booth acknowledged that the investigated employers had been cooperative and proactive. Employers were selected for inspection based on factors including any history of non-compliance with the Fair Work Act, anonymous reports from staff members received by the FWO, and/or their employment of visa holders, among other intelligence, the FWO said, noting that migrant workers are a significant component of the aged care workforce. Specific information is available here to help understand the Aged Care Award, FWO advised. FWO also advised: Issues can also be reported online anonymously to the FWO, including in languages other than English. Employees can also seek information from their union, if they are a member, or from their employer. The FWO also has resources for migrants and visa holder workers who have the same workplace rights as all other employees, with protections for their visa if they call out for help. These are available here. Image credit: iStock.com/matdesign24

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has released its report of an investigation into the conduct of former NSW Health director of engineering and asset management Zoran Ribicic. In its Operation Tivoli investigation, ICAC found that, for more than a decade, the former Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (ISLHD) — a division of NSW Health — employee engaged in serious corrupt conduct. This conduct involved false qualifications, undisclosed conflicts of interest and unauthorised secondary employment, with ICAC saying it will refer relevant evidence to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions regarding possible fraud offences. Ribicic also improperly awarded work to his sister’s company, split contracts to avoid going through competitive processes, failed to declare conflicts of interest and took on secondary employment while working in a senior public sector role, ICAC said. ICAC said the Operation Tivoli investigation report “identifies important lessons for all organisations regarding recruitment, procurement, conflicts of interest and governance”. Lesson 1: Verify credentials, don’t simply accept them Ribicic had faked his qualifications and used false references to obtain several public sector positions between 2012 and 2025, ICAC found. Qualifications including a doctorate in business administration, a master’s degree in project management, a bachelor’s degree in engineering and a TAFE Engineering diploma were dishonestly represented by Ribicic, ICAC said. Ribicic also provided false references in support of employment applications. Transport for NSW, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (NSW Health), Port Authority of NSW and Penrith City Council all failed to detect dishonesty and hired him, ICAC revealed. “Operation Tivoli demonstrates the importance of independently verifying qualifications, registrations and references,” ICAC said. “The Commission’s investigation identified weaknesses in recruitment due diligence and highlights the importance of checking qualifications directly with issuing institutions, conducting rigorous referee checks, and regularly reviewing recruitment practices to ensure they remain effective. With the rise of artificial intelligence, it will be even more important for human resources staff to verify documents and references at source.” Lesson 2: Personal relationships must be disclosed Ribicic knowingly failed to declare a conflict of interest involving his sister, whose company Risk Control Consulting (RCC) was engaged to undertake work for ISLHD. Between March 2022 and July 2024, RCC received more than $275,000 in payments from ISLHD, with Ribicic managing the engagement and approval process. Ribicic deliberately concealed the conflict and improperly favoured the company over potential competitors, ICAC found. “Transparency, early disclosure and independent oversight are essential safeguards against favouritism, misconduct and loss of public trust,” ICAC said about this lesson concerning conflicts of interest, nepotism and favouritism. Lesson 3: Watch for procurement red flags Through a process of ‘order splitting’, ICAC found that hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money was improperly awarded by Ribicic to external contractors, including RCC. He was authorised to approve quotes up to $30,000, and requested favoured suppliers to break much larger bodies of work into bundles below $30,000, a move that allowed him to engage his family and associates without the competition and oversight that would ordinarily apply to substantial contracts. “Order splitting can be a lazy way of shortcutting proper procurement processes, or it can be the means by which corruption occurs,” ICAC said. “Either way, order splitting avoids proper oversight and accountability for public expenditure. Agencies should ensure their procurement processes include effective oversight, segregation of duties, conflict of interest controls, supplier due diligence and data analytics that identify unusual spending patterns and procurement anomalies.” Lesson 4: Secondary employment must be transparent It was also found by ICAC that while working full-time at ISLHD, Ribicic deliberately failed to declare and seek approval for secondary employment. He received $210,375 for 10 months’ work with a private company that Ribicic had previously brought on as a consultant to ISLHD while employed in his senior public sector role. “As more workers utilise flexible arrangements, undeclared secondary employment is a growing risk,” ICAC said. “It can lead to unmanaged conflicts of interest, compromise public sector performance and undermine public confidence in the integrity of public officials. Disclosure and oversight arrangements are fundamental controls that help agencies identify and manage these risks.” Commissioner comments Regarding Operation Tivoli, ICAC Commissioner the Hon Helen Murrell SC said it “exposes how a determined and dishonest individual can exploit weaknesses in recruitment and procurement systems within the public service, and we hope that agencies across NSW will learn from our investigation and implement the Commission’s recommendations. “Mr Ribicic held a senior role with NSW Health. By falsely claiming qualifications he did not possess, he secured a position of significant responsibility and public trust. “This was not the first time — or the last time — that he lied to secure a public sector job. Over a period of more than a decade, he relied on false qualifications to obtain responsible positions with multiple agencies. When an agency hires an unqualified person who has dishonestly maintained they hold qualifications that they do not, it should come as no surprise that, once in the job, the person may perform the role dishonestly and/ or incompetently. It is an understatement to say that public confidence could be impaired by the recruitment of unqualified and dishonest people. “Every organisation should ensure its governance controls are robust, transparent and capable of detecting misconduct.” The full report can be downloaded here. Image credit: iStock.com/jacoblund

In this video, general practitioner Dr Walid Jammal addresses some common questions from health professionals about Medicare Mental Health Check In — a digital service that offers free evidence-based and confidential support to help people manage mild mental health challenges, like anxiety, low mood and stress. To learn more about the service from Jane Cameron, Program Director, Medicare Mental Health Check In, St Vincent’s Health Australia — including key takeaways for healthcare professionals — click here. Video source: Australian Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

For many Australians, the hardest part of getting mental health support is not the therapy itself. It’s the long wait times, cost, uncertainty about whether their concerns are serious enough to seek help or the sense that things need to reach crisis point before help is available. For people experiencing mild or emerging mental health challenges, that gap between “not quite coping” and “eligible for intensive care” has long been one of the most difficult spaces in the system to serve. Medicare Mental Health Check In is designed to fill this gap. Launched on 1 January 2026 and delivered by St Vincent’s Health Australia on behalf of the Australian Government, the service offers free, confidential early mental health support to people aged 16 and over who live in Australia. No referral, diagnosis or Mental Health Treatment Plan needed, and there is no cost for the user. It represents a significant addition to Australia’s stepped-care mental health landscape; and for the hospital, health and aged care professionals who sit at the referral points of that system, it is a service worth understanding well. What is Medicare Mental Health Check In? Medicare Mental Health Check In offers six digital programs addressing common challenges such as managing worry, improving sleep and lifting low mood. Each program is designed to take around six weeks to complete. People can work through the program with the guidance of a qualified mental health practitioner via telehealth, or they can complete the same program independently, at their own pace, whenever and wherever it suits them. This model is designed to meet people where they are; whether they want the reassurance of a guided experience or the flexibility of self-directed support. The clinical model is early intervention. By helping people build practical skills and confidence while their symptoms are still mild, the service aims to prevent challenges from escalating into more serious conditions that require more intensive and resource-heavy care. Clinical safety is embedded throughout the service. Participants complete routine outcome measures, including measures such as the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, to track wellbeing and identify deterioration or increased risk. Mental health practitioners monitor responses, and clinical escalation protocols are activated when additional assessment, outreach or a step-up to more intensive support is required. Medicare Mental Health Check In meets nationally recognised safety, quality and regulatory standards, including accreditation against the National Safety and Quality Digital Mental Health Standards and compliance with Therapeutic Goods Administration requirements for digital mental health tools. The service is built with accessibility in mind. Key information is available in 10 languages, with interpreting services available in more than 150 languages. People can access the service by calling Medicare Mental Health (1800 595 212) which provides a non-digital entry point for those who need or prefer it. The model is based on an evidence-based approach that uses Low-intensity Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (LiCBT) developed by the United Kingdom’s NHS Talking Therapies program which helped almost 100,000 people in 2024–25. A national advertising campaign is underway to improve understanding of the service and encourage people experiencing mild mental health challenges to seek support early. You can view the campaign advertisement at youtu.be/GrPMl88Aldk. ************************************************** Case study Mark, 48 years old, lives in regional Victoria and works full-time. He had been struggling with negative thoughts for a while that were keeping him up at night, and he felt like he needed support. He started searching online for anything that might help and came across the Medicare Mental Health Check In website. He wanted to learn new skills. Talking to someone about his mental health felt like a big deal, and he wanted the reassurance of speaking with a mental health professional. The practitioner he was matched with was warm and easy to talk to. He felt properly listened to — not rushed or judged. Doing it online suited him well: it was confidential, and the convenience meant he could fit a session into his lunch break without anyone at work knowing. The practical side of the program, the activities and resources he was given gave him something concrete to work with between sessions, and seeing the same practitioner each time over the six weeks meant he didn’t have to re-explain himself repeatedly. The program felt tailored to what he was going through. “The person I spoke to was really helpful. I felt like they listened … having somebody checking in on you that was empathic and warm really supported me. Online was also good because it felt confidential and was convenient, I could do the activities at work in my lunch break.” Beyond the relief of getting help, there was something else: it made him feel less alone in it, like he wasn’t “totally weird” for having the thoughts he’d been having. Months on, Mark still uses strategies from the program. He’s more attuned to his own thoughts now. He notices them rather than getting swept up in them and says he feels significantly better as a result. ************************************************** Health professionals FAQ for Medicare Mental Health Check In. Source: Australian Department of Health, Disability and Ageing Key takeaways for healthcare professionals The value of a service like Medicare Mental Health Check In depends heavily on how well the mental health ecosystem understands and uses it. While Medicare Mental Health Check In is a self-service and telehealth offering aimed directly at consumers, it is not intended to operate in isolation. It sits within the broader Medicare Mental Health reforms and the stepped-care model — a model where GPs, hospital clinicians, aged care staff and allied health professionals play a central role in guiding people towards the right level of support. Key points for clinicians: Medicare Mental Health Check In offers a low-barrier option to recommend to patients aged 16 years and over presenting with mild or emerging symptoms. The service is suitable for people who may not meet the threshold for a Mental Health Treatment Plan, who are experiencing mild anxiety, low mood or transient distress, or who simply want to start building skills while they consider their options. Low-intensity CBT works best for people with mild symptoms. People experiencing severe depression, debilitating anxiety, complex trauma or acute crisis will still require the intensive treatment that psychologists, psychiatrists and hospital services provide. The service is best understood as part of the stepped-care pathway, providing an early-intervention option that complements rather than replaces the acute and specialist end of the system.   To support clinicians in making confident, appropriate recommendations, downloadable resources are available to help understand the service, explain it clearly to patients and integrate it into their referral conversations. Health professionals can access these resources at www.mentalhealthcheckin.gov.au/resources. For health services looking to make the most of the service, here’s a few practical steps: Understand the service: familiarise clinical and frontline staff with the two pathways (guided and self-guided), the six programs available and eligibility — people aged 16 and over, living in Australia, with no referral or diagnosis required. Build it into referral conversations: consider Medicare Mental Health Check In for patients with mild or emerging symptoms, as one component of a stepped-care approach. Use the resources: download and display the materials in shared spaces to support consistent, accurate conversations and direct patients to the website at www.mentalhealthcheckin.gov.au or call Medicare Mental Health on 1800 595 212.   As Australia’s mental health system continues to grapple with long waiting lists and services under strain, a free, evidence-based early intervention option is a welcome addition. The task now is to translate growing awareness into everyday practice, ensuring the right people are guided to the right support, at the right time. Medicare Mental Health Check In is part of the broader Medicare Mental Health services (www.medicarementalhealth.gov.au). *Jane Cameron is Program Director, Medicare Mental Health Check In, St Vincent’s Health Australia. Top image credit: iStock.com/AJ_Watt

Join this practical webinar to explore how mobile coverage gaps across healthcare and aged care facilities can affect staff communication, emergency response and day-to-day operations — and what organisations can do to build more resilient, connected environments. The webinar is available for download here.

This Australian webinar provides a roadmap to building a robust security culture within your organisation — whether you’re aiming for certification with a trusted security standard like ISO 27001, NIST or Essential Eight, or looking to significantly enhance your current defences. The webinar is available for download here.

Healthcare has spent years digitising clinical work without necessarily making it easier. New technologies have transformed what medicine can do, but the process of delivering care has often become more complex. Clinicians experience that complexity as more data entry, more screens, more clicks — and less attention for the person in front of them. Artificial intelligence (AI), however, bucks this trend. Applied well, AI can reduce administrative work, make relevant clinical information easier to find and release capacity within a constrained workforce. Those gains may improve throughput and lower the unit cost of care. But this is not inevitable. Making one task faster does not automatically make the whole system more productive. The workflow around it must change too. I’ve worked with a number of hospitals to implement AI-powered Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems that embed technologies such as ambient listening and AI search into every clinical workflow. We are already seeing streamlined data entry, faster access to clinical information, and less time wasted on navigating systems. This frees up clinicians to focus on what matters most, providing excellent patient care. I think it’s inevitable that every healthcare provider will go down a similar path. So, let me share a few observations to help you get there, and perhaps avoid a few pitfalls along the way. What care delivery problems are we trying to solve? I am enthusiastic about AI and its potential, but we also need to see it for what it is: another tool we can use to help clinicians. Too often, healthcare providers begin by asking, “What AI tool should we deploy?” rather than, “What care delivery problem are we trying to solve?” That order matters. The problem should determine the tool, not the other way around. In my experience, the choice is less about which AI model or algorithm to use or which tool performs best, and more about whether the health service can use it safely and whether it’s built on a trusted data foundation. We already have many technology solutions fragmented across our clinical workflows. Clinicians tell me we just want to get on with it. We don’t want something we’ll have to log into repeatedly. We want a tool that fits within our workflow, so we don’t have to look for it or use multiple applications. Streamlining clinical work by reducing data entry One problem at the top of every clinician’s and care provider’s list is reducing the burden of using clinical information systems. Increasingly, we expect clinical staff to enter data because the information captured is necessary or useful to the provider or the healthcare system. At first, we captured information to support clinical care. But increasingly, we have asked clinicians to enter data for clinical coding, reimbursement, statistics or statutory reporting. With AI, clinical work can become less about data entry and searching through fragmented information, and more about surfacing relevant context when clinicians need it. For example, AI can produce a draft clinical note summarising a patient encounter and help automate additional data capture, such as coding. The objective, however, is not simply to generate more documentation more quickly. The test is whether the technology removes work overall. If clinicians spend as much time checking and correcting AI-generated content as they previously spent creating it, the productivity gain disappears. Recovering the patient’s story from all the noise Another obvious care delivery problem is how to help clinicians recover the patient’s story from large volumes of health data — ideally inside their clinical workflow so that they can make better decisions with a smaller cognitive burden. When doctors first assess a patient, we develop a differential diagnosis: a list of possible explanations that we test and refine as more information becomes available. We learnt at medical school that if you take the patient history properly, you will probably arrive at the right diagnosis about eight times out of ten even before examining a patient or ordering further investigations. But in recent years the patient’s story has become much harder to see. It’s typically fragmented across overlapping sources, including referrals, clinical notes, imaging reports, medication lists, discharge summaries, and handover notes. Clinicians also commonly review and accept patient messages via a patient portal. AI is a powerful tool for unscrambling relevant information hidden among the noise and making the patient’s story accessible in an instant. Considering the human element of AI solutions I have seen many pilots involving exciting AI tools, but not all of them go on to solve care delivery problems at scale. The successful ones are often led by people who ask: Can we govern and scale this beyond the enthusiastic, technology-literate clinicians who volunteered for the pilot? Would it still work for a busy clinician who did not participate in the design process, has had limited training and is using it under real-world pressure? Again, we need to think less about the AI model or algorithm — in fact, less about the AI itself — and more about the clinical workflow, the conditions in which care is delivered and the people expected to use it. Technology suppliers must also consider the human element. For example, with InterSystems IntelliCare™, we created an EHR solution with built-in AI and interoperability capabilities, embedding intelligence directly within the electronic health record system and the clinical workflows it supports. A unified AI solution — as opposed to multiple bolt-on AI tools — is more consistent and easier to use, and eliminates the workflow friction that often drives clinician resistance. Unified governance also simplifies oversight and enables consistent application of AI policies. And AI algorithms have direct access to comprehensive patient data, enabling accurate insights and recommendations. Achieving significant productivity improvements We still have a long way to go with AI. Beyond these early use cases, however, there are many other opportunities to improve the delivery of care. For example, AI can help identify patients at risk of deterioration and support clinicians in deciding who needs attention first. I also expect AI to help health services understand which patients are receiving best-practice care and where people may have deviated from an agreed clinical pathway. Hospitals will increasingly use AI to optimise patient flow, manage capacity and improve resource allocation. Over time, agentic AI may also perform a growing number of bounded administrative tasks, with appropriate oversight and escalation when human judgement is required. But these capabilities do not automatically translate into productivity. A few minutes saved on an individual task will only create additional capacity if the surrounding workflow changes too. Health services need to decide what work they expect AI to remove, how they will use the released time, and how they will measure the result. That time might allow clinicians to see more patients, reduce waiting times, spend longer with complex patients or finish their work on time. These are all valuable outcomes, but they are not the same outcome. Right now, AI can enable meaningful productivity improvements if we focus on common care delivery problems, integrate it into clinical workflows and consider the human element from the outset. The measure of success should not be how much AI a health service deploys, but whether it removes unnecessary work, releases useful capacity and makes care easier to deliver. Disclaimer Any AI tool or AI functionality provided by InterSystems® is subject to regulatory and clinical safety requirements and is not made fully available to all global markets. Please consult the InterSystems AI Ethics webpage for more information on the company’s approach to Responsible AI and your InterSystems representative for any specific details on jurisdictional availability. About the Author Dr Emeline Ramos is a Physician Executive at InterSystems, a creative data technology provider managing over one billion healthcare records globally. With a medical career spanning over 20 years, Emeline has served as a Surgeon for the UK National Health Service, a Clinical Researcher for AstraZeneca EU, and an Information Management Clinical and Research Advisor for the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Australia. Top image credit: iStock.com/zeljkosantrac

As clinical trials become more complex, EDC and eCOA are generating and managing more critical study data than ever before. Yet when these systems operate in disconnected workflows, the impact extends far beyond data management. Sites face additional administrative burden, patients encounter fragmented digital experiences, and study teams spend valuable time reconciling information across multiple systems. At the same time, the growing volume and diversity of clinical data are making traditional manual processes increasingly difficult to scale. Sponsors and CROs need a more connected approach that brings together EDC, eCOA, and other clinical data sources while applying AI and automation to reduce repetitive tasks, identify issues earlier, and simplify the experience for both sites and patients. The opportunity is no longer simply to digitize individual trial activities. It is to create a connected clinical ecosystem where data, technology, and AI work together to make trial execution more efficient and the overall study experience more seamless. The Operational Bottlenecks Holding Trials Back 1. Fragmented Data Streams In any active trial, data flows in from everywhere — EDCs, eCOA platforms, central labs, wearable devices, and imaging vendors. When these systems don’t talk to each other, teams end up stuck doing manual data reconciliation. Cleaning data across disconnected silos isn’t just slow; it introduces error risks and pushes back database locks by weeks or even months. 2. Slow Study Starts First Patient In (FPI) remains a major sticking point in trial start-up. Building a study database, configuring schedules of activities, and digitizing complex protocols often involves repetitive, manual setup. With late-stage protocol amendments, timelines slip further, driving up operational costs. 3. Burnout at the Site Level Complex protocols don’t just challenge sponsors — they place a heavy administrative load on research sites and patients. Poor eCOA setups, multiple portal logins, and delayed site payments strain site relationships and drive up drop-out rates. When site staff spend half their day troubleshooting software, patient care takes a back seat. Moving Toward Connected, Automated Operations Solving these issues calls for a shift away from single-point tools toward connected platforms. Life sciences companies are increasingly turning to Medidata’s unified platform to bridge gaps across the Patient Experience, Data Experience, and Study Experience: Real-Time Standardization: Tools like Medidata Clinical Data Studio pull data from multiple sources into a single view, automating routine data cleaning so quality control happens continuously rather than at the end of a trial phase. Faster Protocol Builds: Intelligent design tools help digitize protocols and configure schedules of activities early, cutting down preparation time without compromising regulatory checks. Better Site and Patient Tools: Bringing eCOA, myMedidata patient portals, and automated Site Payments under one roof removes friction for participants and cuts down daily site burden. Shifting from reactive data cleaning to proactive oversight helps clinical teams spot trends earlier, protect protocol integrity, and keep trials moving forward. Looking Ahead in Trial Execution Modernizing clinical trials is an ongoing effort. As trial designs grow more complex, staying ahead on risk-based quality management and unified data workflows is essential for keeping pipelines on track. To explore these operational strategies in depth and see how teams are solving these challenges, watch our on-demand webinar to learn more. Image credit: iStock.com/FatCamera

The procedure is over. Used packaging is being cleared away while the operating room resets for the next patient. Clinicians move quickly between tasks, conversations continue in the background and another setup is already beginning to take shape. Most people will never notice the small adjustments that happened throughout the procedure. The missing component retrieved midway through preparation. The variation between products clinicians adapted around without discussion. The unnecessary items opened “just in case”. In high-performing operating rooms, experienced teams absorb these disruptions constantly, often without slowing the procedure itself. When setups change unnecessarily, clinicians adapt. They always do. But adaptation also creates additional decisions, additional movement and additional complexity around procedures that are already demanding by nature. Over time, some of these adjustments become so familiar they almost disappear into the background of the operating room itself. Components opened but rarely used. Products arranged differently between procedures. Teams quietly adapting around variation so often it becomes part of preparation itself. Procedure packs sit quietly inside many of these moments. Not simply as products, but as part of the environment surrounding the procedure. The setup before the first incision. The familiarity teams depend on. The flow clinicians build around without needing to stop and think about it. Sometimes the changes are small: a component removed, products arranged more consistently between procedures or a setup simplified in ways clinicians may barely notice from one day to the next. Individually, these decisions rarely transform an operating room overnight. But over hundreds of procedures, they can begin to shape the experience of the room in ways that are difficult to notice until they are no longer there. And while most of these moments disappear into the pace of the day, they continue shaping the room long before the next procedure begins.