In all other contexts the patient can never be forgotten or deleted. Any
> legal transaction is subject to archiving laws. For tax purposes the time
> period is 5 years in the Netherlands, I think. Only after these periods as
> defined by law the transactions can/must be deleted.
>
It is true
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 03:19:04PM +0200, Bert Verhees wrote:
> Karsten, you are right, a clinician, in the most countries is obliged to
> keep an EHR. But the law does mostly not say he must keep it at his own
> office. So if it is kept at Google or Microsoft, or some smaller PHR
> provider, I
Karsten, you are right, a clinician, in the most countries is obliged to
keep an EHR. But the law does mostly not say he must keep it at his own
office. So if it is kept at Google or Microsoft, or some smaller PHR
provider, I think this is fine according to the law, but still some
law-changes may
Dear colleagues,
GDPR as I understand it and apply in the Netherlands gives consumers/patients
several rights: inspect, change, to be forgotten.
An other important topic is: the goal binding of data. Only absolutely
necessary data needed to execute a specified task can be collected.
With
Normal process in healthcare:
- The patient comes in and signs an informed consent. This is the place
where the Hospital states it has to keep the records for a zillion years.
Check https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/
- Then after a while the patient thinks "let's delete my data at the
Hospital" :-),
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 01:08:41PM +0200, Bert Verhees wrote:
> So, on medico-legal purposes as Ian and Karsten and maybe others referred
> to, a patient, if he maintains his own PHR, and he likes to delete it, he
> can never sue a clinician, because, he, himself, destroyed important
> evidence.
Think the GDPR already provides many answers...:-), see at
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
In the case of a person ("data subject") not being able to take control;
normally another person is appointed to do so on behalf of the "data
subject". So the same law applies..
Cheers, Jan-Marc
Op ma 3
It would be a bad thing to let all patients be restricted in their rights
because one patient, suffering in the past from depression and having a
recurring cancer can get into problems. Some people are emotionally
unstable, they need protection. I don't know the best way, but I would
think of
I promised to come back to some contributions.
So, on medico-legal purposes as Ian and Karsten and maybe others referred
to, a patient, if he maintains his own PHR, and he likes to delete it, he
can never sue a clinician, because, he, himself, destroyed important
evidence. For that reason, it is
9 matches
Mail list logo
