The way to think of the difference is speed (Heard at one
presentation or discussion on security at an AMIA Fall or Spring
Symposium). Both can be penetrated and the only difference is the
speed once you break through. Additionally, in many ways the
electronic medical record can be secured with greater ease but a
breech does more damage. A very good defense is to address the human
factor by education, audit trails, and warnings with sanctions.
Joseph
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the privacy breach
Author: Clinical Computing Working Group Mailing List
<[log in to unmask]> at SMTP-for-MSSM
Date: 10/7/96 2:37 PM
> More interesting is this ties in with a point raised by our Medical
> Records people. The ability of a physician to download patient
> information and then take it home. For example, if a clinical
> repository existed should external drive privileges be disabled.
>
> Joseph
>
We are looking at this problem also, as we implement our CIS. We are an
outpatient-only environment, with the usual paper charts. Although it
is strongly discouraged and officially prohibited, harried MDs have been
known in the past to take charts home from their office to finish
lengthy dictations, consultations, etc. In this arena, the electronic
chart is not so different from this paper one. The EMR does offer wider
access to the information, and that's a higher degree of concern for us,
especially as we plan to allow the docs to access the chart from home.
Paul
--
Paul G. Jenko, MD, FACS
Associate Medical Director
Watson Clinic LLP
1600 Lakeland Hills Blvd.
Lakeland, FL 33805
(W) 941-680-7913
(F) 941-680-7058
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|