On 16-09-2002 03:03, "Thomas Beale" <thomas at deepthought.com.au> wrote:
> I think this is a good overall comment. To which I'll add that what > needs to be shown to have been understood in court are simple clinical > or other facts, in the form of propositions, not screen bit patterns. In > court, it will nee to be shown that that clinician understood fact A, B > and C before attesting the addition to the EHR. Screen shots are not the > way to do this. I suggest that a "standardised XML rendition" of the EHR > entries in question are the way to go. > > Also, we should be careful to differentiate between "attestation" - the > act of the clinician agreeing that he/she has in fact seen and > understood what is on the screen be fore committing it to the EHR, and > "signing" which is an attestation that some lump of content was created > by a certain person, and not someone else. I don't think "signing" > guarantees anything about comprehension, just that a particular stream > of bytes emanated from a source which is positively identified as "Dr > so-and-so". > >>>>> Slowly we are making progress. I agree that there are several reasons to sign and possibly we need ways to indicate this. I agree that there are several contexts. The lonely healthcare provider on his IT island, the one that exchanges information with a few other colleagues, the healthcare providers that are part of a complex network for the exchange of messages, the ones that are part of an higly integrated system of systems. The more complex the more detail has to be stored explicitly. I agree that 'screenshots', 'pictures' can be engineered in several ways. The most likely candidate is XML-document and XML-stylesheet. But perhaps there are others. Gerard Ps: sorry for having an extemist view. -- <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
