On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:29:14 +0100, Andrew Herd wrote:
>It isn't completely clear, but the contenders are:
>
>1) the patient
>2) the practice
>3) the secretary of state
We all know, of course, that "all property is theft". Therefore the
analysis below is just for the hell of it ;-)
What Andrew is saying is that nobody really knows to whom 'data'
belongs.
The 'paper LG envelope and innards' probably belong to Sec of State (or
Sick of State)
The 'data' therein probably belong to the patient (possibly too many
doctors involved to work out exact property rights)
The 'computer envelope and innards' belong to you (or the bank or
whoever)
The 'data' therein that *you* entered still belong to the patient
(probably and preferable)
The 'effort' in doing either and any material reward arising is yours.
Now, the GMC and good medical practice say that keeping good records is
a feature of medical practice.
In that sense, doctors over the generations have kept good records (or
not) irrespective of either the 'envelope' or coding system.
( side issue: is medical shorthand a coding system? When we write 'i
tds', isn't that a code?)
Now, the wisdom of good medical practice (and the GMC) applies to
'records' of individual encounters between doctor and patient.
My interpretation of keeping good records does not extend beyond that.
Specifically, I keep records to look after individual patients, *not*
to do somebody else's job, specifically that of epidemiologists and
health service managers.
If I were *asked* to do that job, *and* chose to do it, I would ask
for appropriate training, funding and support; or, I would request of
the 'asker' to provide me with enough money to hire someone to do it.
Ahmad
________________________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://mednetics.org
home: +44 1273 748198
work: +44 1737 240022
fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|