Cedric Meyerowitz wrote:
Greg
Surely if RACGP standards advice we do backups, by implication we should
check if backups work ? In all the years I have had computers, the
supplyers of my hardware, software (yes even 15 years ago) always advised me
to do regular backups. And to also check if backup actually works. If
RACGP standards say: "backups of electronic information are performed at a
frequency consistent with a documented information disaster recovery plan",
I would have thought that it implies to test your backups - otherwise why do
them ? "Disaster recovery plan" implies one is able to recover data and the
only way to recover data is to have backups and see if they work.
Cedric
Cedric,
Yes, test backups are good practice and if done by competent people are
an important part of data security. But they are also dangerous if done
by people who don't have the necessary knowledge and skills, which is
unfortunately, a great many GPs, in my experience.
I've also heard people at seminars advocating test backups to GPs, when
it is clear that the advocate does not understand the potential risks if
done on a practice's server. I've also seen GPs overwrite their current
data, so its a real problem.
But that is not the point of the thread.
The first is requiring evidence of test backups as part of the
accreditation process, when they aren't in the standard, thereby
overreaching the authority as a surveyor, is one point I'm hoping to get
clarified. If they have the authority, I haven't seen its source, but
would like to. If its a recommendation that's fine, but it's not what
I'm hearing.
The second is ensuring that practices understand that if they don't have
the skills to do these things, they must acquire them by appropriate
training or by contracting practice security out.
What flows is the need to strengthen that message to practices and to
stop the less IT-skilled GPs from either suffering a data loss disaster
or being needlessly distressed by accreditation surveyors, because the
GP has followed what's in the college standard, which the surveyors seem
to be exceeding, on whatever grounds.
Unfortunately I've also heard several stories in the last few months of
the latter occurring. And it further frustrates me that the surveyors
probably know little more about the issues than the GPs concerned, in
many cases.
Greg
--
Greg Twyford
Information Management & Technology Program Officer
Canterbury Division of General Practice
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph.: 02 9787 9033
Fax: 02 9787 9200
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files,
including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited
from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended
recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is
prohibited.
All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
