[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 12:38 +0000, Simon Robert wrote: > In what way is a computer record less secure than a > few bits of paper that often go walk-a-bout and get left any place in a > busy hospital? You may wish to consider that the SCR explicitly does not replace, and will not contain, the material currently on hospital paper records - however, current hospital IT abilities are likely to result in SCRs being printed out, and added to the bits of paper that allegedly go walkabout. You may also wish to consider what the threats actually are, and how, given paper records, you would go about accessing an arbitrary but named target from your current location. Now consider how you would go about accessing 10 000 arbitray but named targets. Now consider how you would go about accessing all unnamed people whose paper records demonstrate a particular diagnosis, in all hospital record systems in the UK. Now assign a value to the information, and replace the disparate distributed records with a single central one. The threat model then changes. > When I end up in A&E I'd like it that the people dealing with me could > have an accurate record of allergies, medications and so on. You may wish to consider what the most cogent criticism of the system as it stands is, based on preliminary data from the pilot study which will not be completed before the main project is rolled out (you may wish to consider if any of that is good IT management practice). The Times published it recently, taken from Computer Weekly, whose ex-editor Tony Lewis wrote "Crash!" a useful book for anyone planning healthcare computerisation. In short, the people you want to rely on those records don't because they don't believe they are reliably accurate. And then there are people who work there who are prone to relying on what they see, or don't, on a screen or form, and acting as if it is true. > At the moment if you are going through medical procedures not based at > your own GP surgery you are often your own Summary Care Record. This > means that everything has to be explained at length to every new > consultant, specialist, nurse or whomever every time. You may wish to consider whether the process of taking a history, which has been practiced since Hippocrates, and no doubt before, is one which does not involve the patient. > When he falls over in the street and needs treatment he's going to have > a great time listing the medications he takes and previous procedures > carried out. You may overestimate the difficulty involved. -- A -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html