Some simple thoughts:
1- The best debugged database application is the Filingsystem of any
operating system/ Why not use it.
2- A record of medical information about one patient consists of all
collected documents of encounters , tests, letters. Why not store them
separately?
3- XML will make it possible to, on one hand write in a human readable way
and, at the same time, record information in a computer processable way.
Why not using XML?
4- If XML documents use Tags from the same Datamodel, all separate
documents can be processed and displayed as if one. Why not do it?
A remark:
Using Word with embedded Excel is not for toying around, but it's nothing
for production of small, simple applications.
Keep in mind, that within a short period of time MicroSoft will start
selling the new version of MS-OFFice.
And what will be the 'universal' data interchange standard? Offcourse ! XML :-)
And finally:
Security.
I'm against the encryption of medical records on an storage medium.
(We don't write encrypted texts on our paper charts)
Systems should provide security.
(A lock on the filing cabinet, etc)
With new additions (XSL) to the basic XML it might become possible to apply
a kind of security to stored documents. But I'm against it.
One of the topics discussed in a workshop on XML was that for medical
purposes it must become impossible to use 'normal' Internet Browsers te
read Medical Documents.
At 00:16 +0200 06-08-1998, James Berry wrote:
>On 5 Aug 1998 21:33:50 +0100, [log in to unmask] (Adrian Midgley)
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.swis.net/health/mir/midgley/hubris22.htm
>>
>>Summary
>>A medical record complete with audit trail could be constructed
>>using (as a thought experiment) Word for Windows with embedded Excel
>>spreadsheets, which would work as well as most databased solutions,
>>and be transportable when the patient moved.
>
>Have you ever tried to manage a word for windows document, with embedded
>excel spreadsheets? It would be a horrible format for a system to access,
>as well as being terribly slow.
>
>If you're suggesting one file per patient, why not use something sensible
>like XML? Easy to parse, although systems would no doubt need seperate
>index files in (whatever) format, but these could be generated from the raw
>XML files depending on the software used.
>
>Remember also that Office 99 (or 2000?) will have HTML as a primary file
>format, which might impact this. Using Microsoft binary file formats _for
>portability reasons_ is silly as they change with great regularlity.
>
>Security might be an issue, if you would want patient data on your hard disk
>to be encrypted to prevent casual access using "notepad" or similar.
>
>Best wishes
>James
>
>--
>Adastra Software Ltd, Edmonton House, Park Farm Close, Folkestone, Kent
>Tel: 01303 222700 Fax: 01303 222701 24-hr support: 0701 0702 016
>Specialists in call handling for GP Co-operatives www.adastra.co.uk
ProRec- Nederland
Gerard Freriks,huisarts, MD
C. Sterrenburgstr 54
3151JG Hoek van Holland
the Netherlands
Telephone: (+31) (0)174-384296/ Fax: -386249
Mobile : (+31) (0)6-54792800
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|