David: The fact that prescription stationery has serial number on it does not prevent "forgery". In one of the Auckland (NZ) tertiary hospital, a whole book of such preprinted prescription paper was stolen not long ago with forged prescriptions appearing in local pharmacies for amphetamine class of drugs. It only aroused suspicion when too many of such scripts appeared within a short time. A more secure way to prevent forgery is electronic prescription with PKI type of security. P.S.: I have recently completed a research on electronic prescription. WRT the issue of legislations governing prescriptions: it is a requirement by law - almost worldwide - that pharmacies are required to have the original paper prescriptions with the prescriber provider number and signature for medications to be dispensed. Hospitals are allowed to "bend" the rule because the originally signed prescriptions are held within the hospitals. Electronic signature legislations to allow e-Prescription are only passed in a very few countries, mainly in Europe and North America. Cheers, Stephen
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 6/02/2006 7:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Gpcg_talk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 17 Send Gpcg_talk mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gpcg_talk digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (David Guest) 2. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (Ian Haywood) 3. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (John Mackenzie) 4. Re: 'Read receipt' request bug in my email software (Peter Machell) 5. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (David Guest) 6. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (Tim Churches) 7. Re: Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? (Wal Tracey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:26:23 +1100 From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: OzdocIT <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Michael Fanning wrote: >Dear Oliver > >I'm a GP in Millmerran, Queensland. Before entering medicine, I was a >pharmacist. With regards to your question, I can say that the original is >indeed required by the pharmacist (in Qld at least, but I believe similar >legislation exists in all states and territories). This is not a medicare >requirement but is state government legislation and exists to reduce the risk >of prescription forgery. > > Good Michael I note that prescription stationery is preprinted on the back with the practice name and a serial number in order to minimise forgery. This reinforces the fact that the only valid prescriptions are those printed on the supplied paper. David -- "UFW. Deb does linux." SIP [EMAIL PROTECTED] NodePhone +61 7 31290168 Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3517 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://ozdocit.org/pipermail/gpcg_talk/attachments/20060206/63290a71/smime-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:58:30 +1100 From: Ian Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 David Guest wrote: > reinforces the fact that the only valid prescriptions are those printed > on the supplied paper. A non-NHS script can be lawfully printed on toiletpaper, should you wish, however it must still be original. In the Good Old Days (pre-2004) there were all sorts of weird and wonderful public hospital script pads, "private scripts" in the eyes of the Feds, but still lawful prescriptions in eyes of the State. Hospital drug charts are also "prescriptions" in law Personally I'm fascinated by the related previous thread. HIC will accept a scanned referral letter as evidence a referral was made, provided the specialist's system logs the date of the scan. They also accept faxed referrals, it seems (i.e. digital transmission of the referral letter image) So why not an e-mailed JPEG of a signed referral letter, which can be internally generated (i.e. never exists on paper) given a single inital scan of the GPs signature. Ian ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:57:55 +1100 From: John Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Michael Fanning wrote: > I'm a GP in Millmerran, Queensland. Before > entering medicine, I was a pharmacist So where did you go wrong, Michael? John Mac ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:22:12 +1000 From: Peter Machell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] 'Read receipt' request bug in my email software To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Barry Lollo wrote: > Pete, > Why anyone would want to attach a > non-Microsoft mail client to this Mail Server using the Proprietory RPC > interface (which correct me if I'm wrong Pete, is what you were > suggesting) Not at all what I meant. I mean Outlook a) doesn't send in a standard format, preferring it's own version of RTF which doesn't render and looks terrible (blue text about 6 pt) in anything other than an MS client. b) doesn't store messages in one of the two standard formats, mbox or maildir, both of which store text as text and are therefore safe. > So while having an OPEN database format is > certainly a good thing, it isn't going to guarantee a customer that > their email will be recovered in the event of corruption occurring. Any mbox or maildir email can be opened in your favorite text editor (Notepad I suppose, Barry?) Of course you won't be able to read an attachment, but most emails are text only (as they should be but that's another argument) and excepting disasterous disk errors, completely recoverable. > There are recovery tools for Microsoft email databases. Not included in the box. The ones I have seen are either spyware laden hoaxes or very expensive. Wouldn't it be simpler to store your mail in a standard format that is much less likely to become corrupted? > One more thing that I'm certain you will agree with Peter (in my dreams > probably) is that the mail client is NOT the best place to store mail > data anyway. Best practice would be to store mail data on a managed Mail > Server, that has the appropriate backups, and other measures to offer > the best chance of reliability. Don't always have that option > ...granted. I absolutely agree with you and have been using IMAP for years. This means my choice of email client is almost irrelevant, and until very recently I was still using a text client like Pine or Mutt to read most of my mail. Nowdays I can't do that if I want to read non-standard mail and unfortunately Outlook seems to be gaining in popularity amongst the technical communitees that most of my mail comes from. It's all about standards OK? Everyone works within the bounds of standards except those that can't play in the sandpit (let's call them meglomaniacs). Remember when Bill first realised the importance of the Internet (a couple of years after most of us) - he said 'We can do better - let's build a Microsoft Internet!' When that didn't work, he spent billions to ensure the demise of Netscape and now I have to write two web pages instead of one because Joe Public doesn't realise that his MS software doesn't play nice with all the rest of the kids. Usually when a standard is ratified the hard work has been done, it's the best description of how to do something that exists today. The only reason MS copies, then changes and ignores the original standard is to stifle competition. If they pooled their resources into creating better software instead of trying to create a new standard (and trying to make it still work as well which usually fails) perhaps their market share would be somewhat justified! > I hope your laughing with me Peter !! No Barry I'm on my knees praying for a new virus that wipes out non-standard email software. Peter. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:30:54 +1100 From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ian Haywood wrote: >Personally I'm fascinated by the related previous thread. HIC will accept >a scanned referral letter as evidence a referral was made, provided the >specialist's system logs the date of the scan. >They also accept faxed referrals, it seems (i.e. digital transmission of the >referral letter image) > >So why not an e-mailed JPEG of a signed referral letter, which can be >internally generated >(i.e. never exists on paper) given a single inital scan of the GPs signature. > > I am not sure that this is true, but if it is, Ian has just solved the problem of secure medical data transmission in Australia. David P.S. It's probably best to make the image a TIFF so the Feds can be sure it is genuine. -- "UFW. Deb does linux." SIP [EMAIL PROTECTED] NodePhone +61 7 31290168 Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3517 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://ozdocit.org/pipermail/gpcg_talk/attachments/20060206/9a7fc8f1/smime-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:52 +1100 From: Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 David Guest wrote: > Ian Haywood wrote: > >> Personally I'm fascinated by the related previous thread. HIC will accept >> a scanned referral letter as evidence a referral was made, provided the >> specialist's system logs the date of the scan. >> They also accept faxed referrals, it seems (i.e. digital transmission of the >> referral letter image) >> >> So why not an e-mailed JPEG of a signed referral letter, which can be >> internally generated >> (i.e. never exists on paper) given a single inital scan of the GPs signature. >> >> > I am not sure that this is true, but if it is, Ian has just solved the > problem of secure medical data transmission in Australia. > > David > > P.S. It's probably best to make the image a TIFF so the Feds can be sure > it is genuine. The obvious solution is for all specialists to equip themselves with pen plotters - can be had cheaply on Ebay - like this: http://hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=75 These were used to produce high resolution graphics in the days before laser printers, and are still used by architects and engineers to produce large-format plans and drawings. The GP sends the specialist, via encrypted email, the following files: a) The text of the referral letter in a suitable format (say, plain ASCII text) b) A set of pen plotter font files which mimic the GP's own barely legible scrawl. c) Pen plotter vector data which precisely reproduces the GP's handwritten signature. Upon receipt, the specialist's[1] computer decrypts the files and sends the text, font files and the signature vector data to the pen plotter, which robotically, but very accurately, writes out a referral letter in barely legible handwriting using a real ink pen, and signs it with a flourish, just as the originating GP would have done, had s/he been present in the flesh. Problem solved, HIC chaps able to be kept happy with evidence of medical penmanship despite the proliferation of these damnable electronical computator gadgets. Tim C [1] Neurologists may wish to further amuse themselves, as Galvani did, by constructing a pen plotter powered entirely by dissected frogs legs. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:55:47 +0930 From: Wal Tracey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Are facsimiles of PBS prescriptions valid? To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have been having ongoing debate with HESA and Medicare over the issue of their individual signatures and card readers They still do not have a Mac compatible card reader .(even if I did want to use one) so in view of the new PIP IT scheme which requires ability to send & receive encrypted messages I suggested to them that I would be financially and professionally disadvantaged and would consider taking legal action :-) The outcome was a teleconference between TEDGP, and others including representatives of DOHA, Medicare and Health Connect I cant say much at this stage but I am optimistic as they have asked us for a submission within the next 2 weeks prior to a further meeting (which they requested) and next meeting is to include HESA representatives. All I can say at this stage is that they appear to be listening and this may be an opportunity to effect some changes ie eliminate the individual certificate I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from the list some of the arguments I have used are card readers are fine if you sit in front of the same desk all day GPs however are often more mobile - workstations in consulting rooms, treatment rooms, hospitals, nursing homes and of course dealing with the paperwork at home. Cards will be lost misplaced left at home - HESAs response was that a replacement would be sent by courier. Unacceptable delay even in the city but what about Cunnamulla or Kalgoorlie The individual certificate may pose technical problems for the software developers These arguments also apply to pathol & radiology requests and scripts What is wrong with the location certificate? I cant see massive forging of pathology requests and referral letters occurring. One HESA person said that they were concerned that surgery staff may create pathology requests instead of the doctor There seem s to be growing pressure for us to accept stand alone Nurse practitioners with limited prescribing and investigation rights ( see new position statement on the ADGP site) Our practice nurses prepare pathology requests from our Pathology review file and present them for our handwritten squiggle I told them I would continue to send illegal referrals by email to those specialists who would accept them and electronic fax with my 10 year old scanned signature and commence signing my path requests with a tick instead of the current circle. We are slowly increasing the number of specialists in our Argus network but our referrals still do not meet their current regulations Maybe we need someone a little more diplomatic than I am or maybe I am the only GP who doesnt want to use a card?? Wal On 06/02/2006, at 8:00 PM, David Guest wrote: > Ian Haywood wrote: > > >> Personally I'm fascinated by the related previous thread. HIC will >> accept >> a scanned referral letter as evidence a referral was made, >> provided the >> specialist's system logs the date of the scan. >> They also accept faxed referrals, it seems (i.e. digital >> transmission of the referral letter image) >> >> So why not an e-mailed JPEG of a signed referral letter, which can >> be internally generated >> (i.e. never exists on paper) given a single inital scan of the GPs >> signature. >> >> >> > I am not sure that this is true, but if it is, Ian has just solved the > problem of secure medical data transmission in Australia. > > David > > P.S. It's probably best to make the image a TIFF so the Feds can be > sure > it is genuine. > > -- > "UFW. Deb does linux." > SIP [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NodePhone +61 7 31290168 > Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > Wal Tracey Norpalms 25 Barker Road Howard Springs Ph 08 89831416 Fx 08 89814752 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://ozdocit.org/pipermail/gpcg_talk/attachments/20060206/4d1bea80/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk End of Gpcg_talk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 17 ****************************************
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
