Andrew McIntyre wrote:
True, but a digitally signed document is a good thing.
Because...?
1. You know who wrote it
2. You know that is not corrupted
3. You know when it was written
4. You do not need to store a paper copy
5. It actually does allow real paperless communication
The last two points have nothing to do with digital signing.
If I send a referral electronically either as text in an ordinary
encrypted but not digitally signed email message, or by a messaging
system such as Medical Objects or Argus but also not digitally signed,
that looks as if it came from me, sounds as if it came from me, and asks
for a service that that health professional usually provides, do you
think that anybody receiving it is likely to question it or to suspect
corruption of the message? What I am saying is that I believe that a
digital signature adds little in practical terms in day to day use. The
only real reason that I see for needing or wanting digital signing is to
satisfy the letter of the law for Medicare benefits purposes.
--
Oliver Frank, general practitioner
255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens, South Australia 5086
Phone 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 Mobile 0407 181 683
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
