Dear All I would like to raise the issue that there are structural models required to deal with security - what structural components are you going to have access to or not - containers if you will. And then there is content - though only when organised appropriately - so that information in an 'organisational' category can be made private.
THe later is much more problematic and I do not think can operate outside of any specific jurisdiction safely - the former is safer. As openEHR shares transactions as the lowest level of transfer, I would propose that our initial work is based on this level. The fact that you can see a problem list - but it only contains some elements - is of concern to me. I would rather not have access to the problem list and operate on that basis. What do others think? Sam > This is important since 'linked' messages, e.g., XML database, can be used > to > handle both status messages from a single Practitioner and multiple > Practitioners. The real problem is to decide/filter what gets in the > permanent record. > This can have legal impacts in the local jurisdiction. For > example, charting > is > performed but most cases at some later time (an issue since memory > recall is suspect) and is typically a paper record Some facilities are > attempting to automate this as well as other practices. What to > do with this > information for many remains an unsolved puzzle. > > Narratives can be hard to handle in record-based systems as can scannable > entries, e.g., charts and images. > > What you do is important and should/must be saved. A possible approach is > a collection of databases handling specific information with posting in a > EHR/EPR/EMR, both surviving as permanent data. > > This puts a focus on record format/structure, i.e., there are limitations > imposed by implementation, jurisdiction, users, performance, networking, > etc. Small block sizes is desirable; records can be composed of multiple > blocks; narratives from multiple Practitioners might be hard to handle. > > Interesting problem! > > -Thomas Clark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karsten Hilbert" <Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net> > To: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: openEHR security; Directed to Thomas Beale > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > Constructive! Do you anticipate entering this type status information > > > into an OpenEHR record? > > Absolutely ! I do record such information even today. > > > > > If so, what record? > > I do so now in the narrative part of the record, at times > > linked to previous data by plain and simple layout of data > > items. > > > > Karsten > > -- > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
