A burden Peter?
Unbelievable that any programmer or Software Company could argue read only access would cost anything other than simple common courtesy of giving doctors real access to their data. We use several third party applications to use doctor's data in Medtech32. Over 90% of time the data access is via MT32. The <10% of other applications usage of the data is over $100k in revenue. I not money hungry, the use of clinica data outside MT32 has a quantifiable benefit for the health care of the practice. A data base is a database. With a copy of the data schematics and encryption keys and or passwords, any inventive person can write a helpful application like EyreCare or similar products which can (when used correctly) significantly improve health care and doctors/practice revenue. Unless the software provider can give you every available software tool they are both hurting patient care and hurting your revenue! Like most people changing software is a daunting decision. It only occurs if the software tool does not meet our needs! Medical software providers who encrypt your data do not have any ones interest except their own selfish need to hold you for your income. I feel this show contempt this to all doctors who owns their data. It is worse of course as software in my opinion can often hinder healthcare outcomes for patients! I understand HCN Medical Director 3 encrypts data. MD3 and anyone else who encrypts your data with out giving you the encryption key is possibly simply trying to protect its market share. That can not be considered an excuse to prevent proper access to your data and prevent the best possible health care outcomes for all patients. If MD3 or Best practice, Genie, Zedmed, Profile, Mt32 or any other software provided each of the current and future tools we need they will keep the market share they deserve with out holding us to them by limiting access to our data. Sadly, cutting edge software is a long way away. Third party application should be encouraged to fill the large void in our software needs. Think for a second about a doctor moving practice or software. The difficulty I have seen in my practice and as stated by people in this forum has a significant potential negative impact on people's health care. I wonder if something bad happened if the software industry may share some of the legal risks faced by Doctors? I would assume the software industry does have risks if their actions of encryption knowingly restrict access to a doctor's record causing a negative patient outcome. Regards James -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Machell Sent: Friday, 22 June 2007 8:49 PM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Encryption & CEHR On 22/06/2007, at 8:14 PM, Tony Eviston wrote: Unfettered live read-only access is the absolute minimum. I don't agree that this would be more burdensome for vendors - all they have to so is remove the artificial barricades between the customers and their data. I agree with Tony. If read-only access is a burden for the vendor, they have every right to charge for their time. Peter.
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
