Hi,
After analysis done by the Smartcard people in the Netherlands they came to the conclusion that Smartcards with significant medical information on it need special safety procedures and back-up facilities. These extra's necessitate a full back-up centrally and create synchronisation problems. Everything is technically feasable. But was to expensive. They concluded: the smartcard must be used in the process of identification, only. And even that was very expensive. With regards, Gerard On 2002-06-12 04:18, "Tony Grivell" <tony.grivell at flinders.edu.au> wrote: > At 11:34 +1000 12/6/02, Thomas Beale wrote: >> Li, Henry wrote: >> >>> This is the process >>> A patient visits a care provider and presents his e-card as a proof of >>> consent to treatment >>> >>> The health care provider loads up the health record into the browser and >>> download the info into whatever system he is using (this applies to Hospital >>> as well), the health care provider can also choose to discuss the patient >>> with other health profession on line through the web. >>> >>> When the patient leave the care provider, it is the responsibility of the >>> care provider to upload whatever he has done to the patient back to the >>> e-card and the patient goes away. Any subsequent test results etc, it is the >>> responsibility of the health care provider to contact the patient to have >>> the data put into the patient's e-card. (the patient can choose not to do so >>> - but it is of course to the patients benefit to do so) >>> >> So now there are copies of the EHR a) on the patient's card, and b) >> on the system. Over time there will be many copies of the EHR, some >> more up to date than the copy on the patient's card. What's the >> point of having a copy of the EHR on the patient's card? >> >>> The benefit of this is at any one time, the patient is the only person that >>> has a complete health history of himself and he owns it. (Solve the >>> >> This won't be true - over time I doubt that anyone will have a >> complete history of the patient - they will all have partial >> histories, which admittedly is the curret situation, but I don't see >> any utility in having yet another copy of part of the EHR on the >> card. >> >> Re: the fear of big brother - I agree this is real; but the >> solutions in my opinion lie in: >> >> - distributed computing systems >> - data management by clinical and/or public bodies (non profit >> enterprises in other words) >> - strict governance of information and enforcement of consent >> - data ownership by the patient >> >> - thomas beale > > One attractive option that goes some way to satisfy the above ideals > is to have any particular data exist in only one primary location > (backed up, of course), and therefore the total record "scattered" > potentially around the world. The patient-held e-card (also backed > up somewhere?) carries the _index_ to these locations/data, as well > as being the physical part of a "key" that allows access to this > data, and maybe also carrying some portion of the data (at least a > summary of key events and critical information such as serious > allergies, medication etc) > > tony grivell > > >> >> >> - >> If you have any questions about using this list, >> please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands +31 252 544896 +31 654 792800 - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
