Thanks Greg,
It appears that the only reason for the practitioner to own the record
is purely medico-legal, aka ACD's (ass covering documents). However,
with a robust ehr architecture and a clear legal framework in place
nothing precludes the patient from being the holder of the ehr without
compromising the integrity or adulteration of data, even under a legal
dispute situation. The patient hasn't probably got a chance in a 100
million of altering the ehr even if it tried.
I suppose it becomes more of a philosophical view on how to go about it,
and where we want the emphasis to lie.
mario.
Greg Twyford wrote:
Mario,
A medical practitioner must continue to have control over his/her
records. In a highly litigious environment this is a given. If a patient
decides to commence an action against a medical practitioner, and the
practitioner doesn't 'own' the record, they are in great trouble. It's
standard practice that practitioners must report loss of records, or
unauthorised access to their professional indemnity insurer.
The record is their only defence in asserting what they claim occurred,
as opposed to a different version that a litigious patient may claim.
The current emphasis on upgrading practice information security relates
to this, and the reality that losing patient information, or letting it
escape into the wild, may harm the patient as well.
The admittedly very weak privacy principles, in effect, let patients
access their record, but if they own it or can alter or block access to
sections of it, how do practitioners protect themselves?
If practitioners incur costs in providing copies to patients, or
allowing more open access, how are they to be compensated, as they
compile and store the record? If they don't, a third party with some i
dependence surely must?
Greg
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
