> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew N. > Shrosbree > Sent: Monday, 21 August 2006 11:55 AM > > ArgusConnect are involved in a major project with the TEDGP > to revive the whole concept of personal digital signing. We > are working closely with HeSA and CyberTrust.
I am not against individual digital signing in principle. I accept that it does add a bit more certainty about who sent a message. My question is how much difference this makes in a daily practical sense for the tasks that GPs are doing. How much does it matter to me or to any other GP to see or know that an letter received electronically (e.g. via Argus) from a specialist has been digitally signed by that specialist? (Note: I am not questioning the need for encryption - clearly that is vital - it is digital *signing* that we are discussing here). To date, in my limited experience so far of incoming electronic letters (some sent by ordinary encrypted email, some by unencrypted email and some via Argus), the lack of digital signatures attached to them hasn't bothered me at all. I would be interested to know from my specialist colleagues how much it matters to them or would make their lives better if my referrals sent electronically were digitally signed by me. So far none of the specialists has asked me to sign my referrals digitally. If digital signing was very easy and didn't add significantly to my workload, I would have nothing much against it. However, if it is going to require extra steps in generating or sending electronic letters, such as having to mess around with an iKey and enter a user name and a password, then to justify that extra time and effort I would need to be convinced that it really is providing a significant extra benefit to the patient, me or the recipient of my letter. If digital signing is being promoted by anybody including Argus merely to satisfy the Medicare bureaucracy, and digital signing is not adding anything useful to our care of our patients, I will campaign to get the Medicare requirements changed so that digital signing is officially not required. Does anybody on this list believe that digital signing, for the purposes of communicating with our colleagues about patients, really adds anything useful in terms of actual quality of care? I am open to persuasion on this. I know that Horst has said previously that digital signing of at least some communications is a good idea. Horst, do you believe that digital signing is desirable and worthwhile, in quality of care terms, for referrals, replies to referrals and other communications between providers about mutual patients? Oliver Frank, general practitioner 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens South Australia 5086 Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
