In article <[log in to unmask]>, Adrian Midgley
<[log in to unmask]> writes
> the dispensary
>>would hold the Prescription E-mail.
>>
>>I wonder if some kind of hard encrypription would satisfy the legal
>>aspects? If the encrypted Rx could only have emanated from a particular
>>GP, would the pharmacist accept that as a reasonable excuse to dispense
>>until a weekly signed batch arrived?
>Yes, but no<g>
>
>Quite obviously the pharmacist will not accept the digital
>signature, if the doctor has discretion to _not_ sign th
>epaper in the weekly batch, upon realising that he had made
>a mistake (eg by the patient being, at that later time,
>dead)
>
>Conversely, if the pharmacist can accept and dispense
>against the digital signature it would be the act of an
>idiot to require the doctor to sign a prescription later,
>given that this activity can by definition have no effect
>on the dispensing of the prescription.
>
>You have fallen into the error commonly perpetrated by the
>most ignorant, indolent and importunate of patients and
>social workers, of thinking that
>"a doctor's signature is required before this may be done"
>is equivalent to
>"a doctor must sign this since I want it done"
Not quite what I meant... I was thinking that... in our case.. the
"request to dispense" could only get to the dispensary via internal E-
mail from a specified GP. This would hopefully be enough of a
guarrantee for the pharmacist to dispense, against a "block" signatute
at the end of the week. I was thinking perhaps of a print-out of all
the dispensed items only one signature being needed, or perhaps one per
page.
I am sure the security could be tightened up. wouldn't work in a
different environment .. I grant you.
"a doctors Signature is required, but I'm only going to do it once"
:-)
--
Chris Pearson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|