Bill Walton wrote:
> > > > BW: Further, it looks like the EHR access history should include > reads as well as writes. That way, the trail would lead to the > providers that have, with permission, made copies of the EHR within > their own systems. > > > SH: True - it will only be able to be stored as an HTML rendition > unless there is an extract in openEHR - but you are right - this could > be saved - this is difficult to police. > > Oops! I'd assumed there would be extracts in openEHR. HIPAA > specifies, under the Transaction Rules that go into effect in October > of this year, a number of EDI transactions between systems that would > require this. HTML will not be sufficient. Can anyone clarify this bit of the debate - I have lost track of what is being said here! > > I'm taking this to mean that there will be configurable permissions on > type of access. Yes? yes - probably quite sophisticated ones. > > SH: Research access will be via the kernel with an approved program > unless it is one-to-one reading of records when the patient's consent > is required anyway. > > Hmmm.... Again, perhaps a difference at the national level. Research > here is the U.S. typically requires extracted data to be > transferred from a physician's system to the research organization's > system. both scenarios are equally ok. I would also have expected the one Bill mentions to be more likely - especially as data transformation and anonymisatino are often needed. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
