Andrew McIntyre wrote: >For medico-legal purposes signing all incoming documents with a >location key would make them fairly secure against tampering and >provide absolute integrity checking, this is something we can do. If >you do that with scanned documents and follow the other storage >requirements then its a legally valid document as per the HIC >guidelines. > > It still sounds like a load of crock to me. If you sign a scanned incoming document image with your location key, it merely proves that someone in your surgery once had a document which was like this image. It proves nothing about the authorship of the letter, which is what the Feds want to know.
What does following "other storage requirements" entail? If that means keeping the original paper document for 7 years then why go to the bother of signing the scan. As I said before we seem to tie ourselves in knots creating a cryptographic system that demonstrates to the HIC that a GP sent a specialist a referral about a particular patient on a particular day. If that's the message they want why can't we just send it to them? It would be a trivial programming task in the EHR. I suspect the fact that it would be highly effective is its chief deterrent or maybe they just like bashing GPs around the head. David -- SIP [EMAIL PROTECTED] NodePhone +61 7 31290168 Jabber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
