Gérard, I think you are wrong. A patient in the Netherlands can require under specified conditions total physical and logical removal of his data from a health care information system .
If you want I can represent you a link to the law - text which says so, but because that is in Dutch, and therefor not readable for others, and also not interesting for others I rather take that communication to private level instead of public discussion group level. Best regards Bert Verhees Op za 4 nov. 2017 18:48 schreef GF <[email protected]>: > Even when the patient wants all data to be removed, this means removeal in > the context of the provision of helath care. > For legal and administrative purposes the data can NOT be removed but be > available for these non-healthcare provision related circumstances. > One needs a label ‘deactivated’ (for health purposes. > > Remember: Even when the patient has left the author (HcP) has > administrative and legal responsabilities. He is accountable for many years > because fo actions taken. He needs to be able to defend himself. > > GF > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > [email protected] > > Kattensingel 20 > 2801 CA Gouda > the Netherlands > > On 4 Nov 2017, at 17:20, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gérard has some points. A patient, in the Netherlands, has under > conditions the right to require the physical removal of all data. > In that case no "deleted" marker is necessary. > > Then there is the case of inactive patients. In case of a GP the law > requires he must.be able to produce the patients data until ten years > after last visit. Often patients just disappear without formally ending the > relationship with the GP or they never had a formal relationship. Tourists > for example. A GP is not interested in seeing persons in a listing which > are not his active patients. > > I once, some years ago, helped facilitating archiving those patients data, > so they could be they physically removed from the GP information system. > Also here was no "deleted" marker necessary. > > The only situation I can think of that requires a "deleted" marker is when > a information system is used for historical data research together with > active clinical use.. > > Maybe a standard should not facilitate such combination of use cases in a > single data storage information system. > When historical research is needed one should query the archive system. > > Bert > > Op za 4 nov. 2017 13:16 schreef GF <[email protected]>: > >> My two cents. >> >> Two data collections are involved: Patient registry, Patient Health >> Record. >> I focus on the Patient Health Record. >> >> 0- Committed data is never physically deleted. >> >> 1- Inactive. 'Copy of data'. >> EHR with patient records. >> The patient moves to an other place and chances Healthcare Provider. >> A copy of the EHR is sent to that HcP. >> The original becomes inactive and can be consulted for legal, >> administrative purposes, only. >> The Patient record is labelled: inactive, read only for legal and >> administrative reasons >> >> 2- Inactive. ‘Removal of data’ >> The patient demands by force of law that all personal and health data is >> removed. >> The EHR becomes inactive and can only be consulted for legal, >> administrative reasons >> The Patient record is labelled: inactive, read only for legal and >> administrative reasons >> >> 3- Active: Updating of data by third party (patient) >> The patient demands a change in the data recorded. >> Data recorded after one or more events are changed. >> The original Compositions stay un altered. >> A new version of the Composition (with the patient as author) is created. >> >> 4- Active, Update by original author >> New facts indicate that previously entered data about an event was >> incorrect. The mistake needs to be corrected. >> A new version of the Composition is created. >> Old data can be acted upon. The application needs to redress this fact. >> >> 5- Update before a Commit. >> During data entry but before the Commit data can be changed always. >> Versioning is NOT necessary. >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 >> [email protected] >> >> Kattensingel 20 >> 2801 CA Gouda >> the Netherlands >> >> On 3 Nov 2017, at 13:49, Thomas Beale <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's potentially not a completely wrong idea: it might be worth thinking >> about a 'deleted' marker on the VERSIONED_OBJECT<T> type itself. As i noted >> before though, i'd like to get a better idea of real scenarios where the >> current model of deletion doesn't work properly before doing anything. >> >> - thomas >> >> >> On 03/11/2017 02:36, Bert Verhees wrote: >> >> >> In a versioned system there is no status for "deleted" necessary *inside* >> a composition. The system itself marks the composition deleted. With this >> in mind it seems to me the semantical meaning of the inside "deleted" >> status is meant for something else. >> >> Bert >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
