Fair comments. If we feel that the data cannot be kept confidential
then we should not permit access - there are persons and groups that I
would not allow to sign such a document and would therefore refuse
access (to written records as well).
The idea is really geared toward the more personal access (dietician,
PAMs, etc), and not to the organisations like PCGs and Social Services,
nor EDI messaging.
Paul's suggestion of explicit consent is a "stopper" - and anyway,
without a real guarantee of confidentiality I would strongly advise
patients to refuse.
Our computer data security policy (dreadfully flawed but at least it
exists) needs rewriting to take these threats into account.
Bill Beeby
GP - Middlesbrough UK
* (SMTP) [log in to unmask]
* (x400) [log in to unmask]
* Fax 01642-270055 PGP key available.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jel Coward
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 3:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Confidentility
>
> >Use of this sort of measure might draw attention to the issues -
> >certainly to those who think GP data is just up for grabs.
> >
> Disagree - this makes the signing of such clauses the key to accessing
> the information ie it provides the door opening key. I would rather
> keep the front door locked and pass out suitable data through
> a serving
> hatch (for the appropriate fee of course)
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|