Barry Lollo wrote:
If one was to take a good look your statement, then Healthlink is just 1
of many pieces of "proprietary software performing unknown and
unverifiable functions on their Servers." Greg has stated that there can
often be 7 "diallers" (all potentially proprietary & unverifiable)
installed at a practice. Does a GP know what is going on with any others
??
No.
A recent "prescribing habits data" incident comes to mind !!
This was something that GPs entered into voluntarily for monetary gain.
They knew that some of their patients' data was being exported. The
obligation was on those GPs to know exactly which data were being exported.
So I
would ask, is our problem with Healthlink, or the fact that
"Non-certified" Software from all sources, is being thrust upon General
Practice in an unstructured way.
The latter, and general practices need to be aware of the potential
risks with each package that they install.
Does a GP care what software is installed on his/her site ??
Most don't, but that is because they are not aware of the risks or
assume and/or hope that there aren't any. It's rather like unprotected
sex. The participants either are not aware of the risk of pregnancy
resulting, or else they assume and/or hope that there isn't any risk.
They are often wrong.
One hopes
they do, but in reality a small minority of you do. Does She/He have the
ability to verify every package ?? Do they trust someone tasked with
installing this software ??
GPs don't have the ability to verify every package, nor should they be
expected to do so. In general, they will have to "trust someone tasked
with installing this software" as you say. They had better trust
someone who understands the risks and knows what he or she is doing.
Do they have a choice ??
Yes.
I guess the fact that Healthlink are still around and growing suggests
that the arguments against their product presented to date, aren't
stacking up.
I have no argument against HealthLink's product or against any other
commercial messaging product. From what I understand, those commercial
products work reasonably well and are supported reasonably well. They
have to do this, or in a competitive market they won't survive.
The main reason that I don't advise our colleagues to all start actively
using HealthLink (as opposed to the almost completely "passive" use
currently being made by general practices) or any other commercial
messaging system is that we have available to us an Australian-developed
open source standards-compliant free-to-use interoperable system that
does not and will not generate profits for its owners at the expense of
our patients or the profession. If there is a product available that
provides clinical messaging functions in an open way without locking its
users in and without generating profits for business owners, I believe
that it is important that we find out what is wrong with it (by putting
into practice) before we start paying money to commercial providers for
that service.
It is interesting to note that paradoxically, each commercial messaging
system is actually deliberately designed to *inhibit* free communication
by preventing its users from communicating with users of any other
messaging system. I understand that in contrast to this, Argus
publishes its message structure and thereby allows non-users of Argus to
send messages to Argus users.
> Maybe we need some new ones (arguments).
Only if the current arguments are or become invalid. Do you believe
that they are or have become invalid, and if so, which ones and for what
reason(s)?
But I'm going to suggest that
it wasn't the thrust of your email anyway ??? I'm certain I've got that
right :) !! If the problem was with Healthlink
I would like to re-iterate that I don't have any problem with
HealthLink. It is a commercial operator providing a product at a
commercial price, and which seeks, for perfectly good commercial
reasons, to lock users into using only its own system. It does so
because that is how its business model, like that of others in the
business, works. The *only* reason that we are talking about HealthLink
at all by name, and not other commercial messaging providers by name, is
that Tom Bowden participates in this email group (and I admire him for
that) and speaks up on behalf of his company and its product (which is
his job). I believe that Tom's contributions to our discussions are
valuable. Anything that I say to counter any of his statements is based
on my beliefs about the principles of what we are discussing or on what
I understand to be the realities of the situation, and not from any
animosity towards HealthLink or any other commercial organisation.
, then I think we need
some new arguments. The old ones are becoming a little repetitive, and
starting to loose their punch. !!
With respect, I disagree. Arguments lose their punch only if and when
the fundamentals of the situation that is being argued about change. Do
you believe that the fundamentals of this argument have changed, and if
so, how?
Your comments are usually well informed and highly respected, so can I
suggest that we all need to put our efforts into some sort of
"Certification" process for software used in the Primary HealthCare
sector. I know we have mentioned this before, and I know there are
things in place to make some of this happen. Just by the by, I would
suggest that Healthlink would be one of those packages that would almost
certainly be "certified" (dependant on the appropriate criteria of
course). If there was a process in place for certification (with
criteria we all agree on), then we would have a chance to take emotional
comments out of the play.
I agree that some method of providing some reassurance about whether
software loaded on to our practice systems is "safe" in terms of
security risks and patient privacy requirements would be good. All we
need now is to work out who will offer to provide that service and who
will pay for the certification of every version of whatever software is
being certified. In the meantime, using open source software appears to
be the only way for users to have any real hope of knowing what the
software is doing and what its security risks may be. I would be
interested to know whether HealthLink's software or any other software
that GPs use does have any certification from any professional or
government organisation about its "safety".
--
Oliver Frank, general practitioner
255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens, South Australia 5086
Phone 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 Mobile 0407 181 683
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
