[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>>such things do not exist in the IT world any more than they do in the
>world of paper based records. <
>Ah, but they would have to physically break into my premises which are,
>surprisingly, fixed in one place to get at the physical records
Phooey.
GPs routinely leave patient records in car parks, inside or outside
cars, carry them on visits, leave them open on a desk while seeing
another patient (who can skim read them upside down)
They have letters sent to the wrong doctor by hospitals, faxed to the
moon and beyond...
They talk about the contents in post graduate centres, trains, pubs,
reception areas of practices...
Electronic records are more secure against cleaners.
You might check out
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/bulletin/entries/CSC-PA-97-001.html
and around.
>whereas without suffcient IT security they could be on the moon.
The keyword there is sufficient. IT is in general more secure than
paper, and can be made more so, but in the same way that secure paper
is a pain to use, with each file being checked in and out and signed
for each way, with access controlled to the room in which it may be
read and checks and monitoring of the people cleared to read it, the
more secure you aim to be the more it impinges on your operations.
With paper the slope is steeper than with electronic systems, IE it is
harder to achieve a given level of protection with paper than with
computerised records.
And of course the most common way of achieving a breach in security of
GP records is to ring up, and ask somebody to look something up in
them. WIth paper it is neither obstructed nor logged, with electronic
systems the access is logged, and if you wish to exercise surveillance
of the records, you can.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|