Greg Twyford wrote: Hi Greg,
we have really moved past this issue on the Sunshine Coast and are trying to solve more difficult problems. I do not think that demanding a digital signature is unreasonable. Perhaps if Medical Software companies spent more on Software Engineers and less on CEO salaries the problem would go away! This is a recent PKI Signed message I received from a local GP. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 21/02/2007 Dr. Andrew McIntyre Dear Andrew Re: PATIENT REFERALS DOB: I wonder if you are the person to solve the endless problem of Patient Referals. GPs get requests almost daily to fax, and/or backdate, a referal to a specialist about a patient who has not been seen recently, or not seen about the issue the specialist is about to treat, or has already treated. I have pointed out to a couple of Specialists that not only is it illegal to backdate a referal, it also defeats the referal system, in that GPs are meant to be the gatekeepers determining what is appropriate, and without a referal prior important information may not be avaialable to the Specialist. The response from these Specilaists is that referals are a pain, that patients are always told to get a referal, but either forget or leave it the day of their specialist appointment and then can't get a GP appointment in time. With most Doctors computerised, most with patient recalls, and locally with Medical Objects, I wonder if a system can be developed to faciliate patient prompts a month before a Specialist referal is needed, to see their GP for a new referal. For some time you have utilised your Recall system, which prompts you when a patient is due for review. A letter is then sent (by Medical Objects) to the GP saying that their records say that a patient is due for review. The GP can then contact the patient to discuss this, see if it is appropriate, give a referal (or send it directly via Medical Objects which removes the forgotten referal issue), and treat all the other issues that inevitably arise during a GPs consultation. This is a good system that works for you, works for us, and works for patients. Alternatively, if a Specilaist sends a letter to a patient reminding them that their appointment is due, and that they need a new referal, a copy could be sent to the GP by Medical Objects, who could then flag the patient for recall to get a referal. The wider use of the recall system that you use would make life easier for patients, Specilaists and GPs. It probably does not require Specilaists to install new software, just to use their existing software more effectively. However, it may be that this is inspires a need for new software to simplify our lives, much as Medical Objects has done. I would be keen to hear if you have any other suggestions, and if you interested in helping to resolve this endlessly frustrating problem. Yours sincerely, Dr. xxx xxxxx --------------------------------------------------------- btw I can prove its Genuine, I have a PKI signed version ;-) Without digital Signatures on GP Referrals sending them electronically is a pandoras box - If the HIC audit the specialist, then without a digitally signed referral or a signed paper copy they are liable for prosecution, or at least a lot of ringing around!. Thats why Medical-Objects has not released a GP client to send Referrals without a PKI key. technically its a piece of cake, but we do not want to be a cause of HIC "Issues" in the future. I would be great if the HIC would agree to users registering PGP/GNUPG keys for digital signatures but they won't. The iKeys work (well 95% of the time they do) and they are free, I can't see the point in pushing the issue. I really can't see the HIC secretly signing incriminating documents with your PKI key, with a forward dated system clock, before you get the key and then prosecuting you, thats conspiracy theory taken too far. Andrew McIntyre > Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: >> Greg >> >> The way I read Duncan's letter, he is saying that if they scan a GP >> referral >> the patient gives them, they still have to keep that paper original as >> well. >> >> Cedric > > Yep. > > No doubt about it in my mind. He needs to check that part of the > Mediguide to see if it tells him how long for. > > Greg >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Greg Twyford >> Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2007 11:05 AM >> To: General Practice Computing Group Talk >> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Referrals from a specialists perspective >> >> >> Thinus van Rensburg wrote: >> >>> You missed my point - why can I scan it and then shred the paper copy >>> and he cannot? If they are saying to him it is illegal when will they >>> start coming after us and want paper copies of documents. For >>> instance we scann all the signed medicare vouchers and burn the >>> submitted batches to disk - I do hang on to the paperwork at present >>> but plan on shredding once space beomes an issue - I cannot see why >>> this should be a problem as I have PDF copies that was scanned in >> >> Thinus, >> >> Are you a specialist or a GP. Duncan is talking about referrals, which >> if faxed are supposed to be followed up with the original copy. >> >> If you are talking, on the other hand, about DB4 vouchers, which GPs >> use when they bulk-bill, the paper with the patient's signature has to >> be kept for Medicare's auditing purposes for two years, if you are >> doing electronic claiming. >> >> It's all in Medicare's Mediguide. >> >> http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/resources/medicare/mediguide/ma_mediguid >> >> e_edition10.pdf >> >> Greg >> > > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
