Halbert, Gareth wrote: > *** This is my first post here so my apologies in advance if I seem to be > 'recreating the wheel' with my posts. *** > Welcome to the bear pit, Gareth.
> That does raise an interesting point, in an ideal world information should > be able to be sent to patients and should be fully encrypted, however my > feeling at this point in time it seems that we are not able to get "Doctor > -> Doctor" and "Doctor -> Specialist" encryption working efficiently due to > a number of factors. > > If these issues seem to cause a lot of problems with GP's, specialist's etc > (Who generally have 1. An IT person/s looking after their IT needs and 2. A > good understanding of their software and encryption requirements) I would > not like to try to apply these problems to patients who may or may not use > said encryption systems again and certainly would not have the understanding > of encryption software/keys required to receive the information. > I agree. In general patients (and doctors) are not able to utilise encryption systems. > I think if a patient requires information electronically it would be > sufficient to have this provided on a CD or floppy disk. (I know of at least > one specialist that provides this service for ultrasounds). I for one would > not like to have these scans/videos emailed to me as the size of the files > would make it difficult to work with (especially if the patient uses older > dial up connection) > I like Horst's idea of giving them an encrypted web page where he does the authentication at the surgery. (This step can be somewhat automated with modern CMSes.) The patient has to remember their name, email address and password but many can do that. As we have seen BP, MD and probably other programs can dump to XML. Now a nice project for ?one of Jon Patrick's students would be to write a RAIL's interface to that XML dump. :-) David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
