I so agree with you Greg.
This is NOT an argument about whether the accreditors are right or wrong
about this specific issue of backups.
Because if by chance they are right about this one, they are just as likely
to be wrong about another.
Its about STANDARDS.
People seem to misinterpret "standards" as meaning good quality.
Its really just about standardisation.
ie what ever the standard is, its should be generalised. We can improve
standards, but for now, we just need standards.
Accreditors are meant to determine IF GPs meet standards.
The accrediting body/s are not there to set standards. And clearly
individual accreditors cannot set standards if they are working in
isolation.
One wonders what makes a GP think they are good enough to judge another.
Those that can, do, those that cant, accredit ? Im being mean ! :-)
I already bemoan the RACGP and their impractical aspirational standards, now
we have holier than thou acreditors who wage their own little petty wars by
extorting GPs to comply with their personal obsessions.
I remember a time when I was involved in training candidates for the RACGP
examination, talking to an examiner who said that if he saw a candidate, and
they didnt listen to each carotid at 3 different locations, he would fail
them. I thought this person was clearly abusing his power and what an
inappropriate examiner he was. I soon stopped my association with the RACGP
examination process.
So good on you Greg for raising this issue.
David Pan
(not a lover of accreditaion or accreditors if this wasnt clear.....)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Twyford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General Practice Computing Group Talk" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] backup!
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date:
26/03/2007 2:31 PM
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
