What about the "Gnotary" idea proposed by Horst some years ago to prove
the fact that medical records have not been subsequently altered in a
legal case?
Presumably this could this be applied to any document or letter. ie
Letter + plus some local digital signature +timestamp => one way hash =>
distribute the result to several peer notary servers including HIC. The
letter itself remains confidential.
Can be recovered by referring GP if required
R
Ross Davey wrote:
J Collett wrote:
But how do you accomplish this when you send the document as an
attachment
in an email which is then 'stripped' off to be imported into an EHR?
Is the
attachment signed as well and I just don't know where to look?
Whether the document is in an attachment or not is immaterial. There
are a number of choices of what to sign and this is a reasonable
matter of debate, however whether you use MO or Argus or HealthLink
the issue of what happens to the signature once the document is
imported into MD or Genie etc remains the same regardless of what
transport product you are using. The signtaure is lost once it is
passed to a clinical application that cant handle signatures.
I would think that MO does the same as we do. You can view the
document and signature from the database store of the document within
MO or Argus. But once the document is imported into the clinical
app, it loses its signature unless the clinical app implements viewing
of the digital signature in the same way as the message transport
facility has. (really the signing of the document should not be a
function of the message transport facility, but should be a function
of the sending and receiving application) Now you might sign a
facsimile of the document that has been placed in an OBX segment of
the HL7 or you might sign separately the atomised data in the OBX
segments and then sign separately the facsimile of the document, or
you might sign the entire HL7 message.. The trick is to come up with
a scheme that everyone agrees upon and is extensible and handles both
document 'blobs' and atomised HL7 data (and maybe even messages that
are not HL7) and maybe even allows different people to sign different
components of a document as is now possible in a paper-based form.
Tricky. We think this needs a lot more thought before going to
Standards Australia.
NeHTA better get on with it and start to focus on 'content/payload'
issues otherwise we will just have to get together and decide on this
ourselves.
cheers
Ross Davey
-------------------------------
Ross Davey
CEO
ArgusConnect Pty Ltd
Ph: 03 5335 2220
Mob: 0417 548608
Web: www.argusconnect.com.au
-------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
