> "That is not feasible" > > And that's the problem that will keep the technical people in money for > years to come. I am not a technical person per se. I am an clinician.
> Not only must it be feasible it will be demanded by judges > and courts Surely, courts and judges have been known to demand and accepts proofs that aren't proofs before. They'll learn, too, what things need to be taken to mean. > if the EHR is to ever be truly adopted. Too pessimistic, IMO. > Even now we have rules > that all e-mails where a decision is made must be printed out! Which is akin to photographing every screen you view. > The paperless world has never been to court. In a court one not always has to provide a waterproof trail of evidence. There is "substantial evidence" (is that what it's called ?). And there is "demonstration of due course" which adds a lot of weight to what otherwise are simple assertions. > It is feasible of course but complex. Flags are set when pages are viewed, Those flags do not document what you want them to document. Such a flag only documents that it was set. Everything else is "due course". Eg. if the flag is set "it is reasonable to assume" that it was set by the software the doctor claims to have used. Also "it is reasonable to assume" that the doctor thus "saw" what that program would display in conjunction with that flag being set. No hard proof there. > there are intricate audit trails (terabytes). The fact that no one is doing > it yet Why do you think this is a fact ? 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
