[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>Mechanisms should be in place within
>Primary Care systems ( and are already in place in many Community and
>Mental
>Health systems ) which allow 'appropriate' information to be shared and
>'inappropriate' information to remain confidential. All under the
>control of
>the clinicians.
The Proteknic system locally - which has much to commend it in the way
it is being used - provides shared information to CLinical
PSychologists which does not include the diagnosis...
THe question of who needs to see what has not been resolved, and
therefore it is difficult to write systems or administer them so that
they enforce it.
It may be more pragmatic to run a task from time to time which
generates several sets of summaries, downloading them as text files (or
html) into directories which the various people have rights to access.
IE one directory contains a page per patient with all info the PCG have
determined is appropriate for dieticians to see. Another has the info
for the OoH service.
THe OoH service should see allergies, the Physio should see Xrays, the
dietician I think could make a very good case for seeing weight records
and food sensitivities.
Control of access is therefore left to existing network systems, which
are good at it, and logging of access is also a task sorted out long
ago.
Controlling what goes into the pages can be tackled in several ways,
including allowing a patient to specify that nothing, or a reduced set
goes in there.
There is no particular merit to running access live against the
database, as searching surely cannot be a legitimate aim.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|