This is an important issue - I believe it will be consumers who decide this.
They have worked for many years with minimal information!
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Principles of health care system security.
> Have these assumptions been blessed with input from representatives of
> clinical pathology and other diagnostic services? I understand that they
do
> need relevant input from patient history, treatment, and medication to
> inform their diagnoses and that an abstract provided by clinicians is
often
> inadequate. Providing such an abstract is also much more costly for
> clinicians and lab staff.
>
> >Sam Heard wrote:
> >
> >> > What about lab staff who need to know if special handling precautions
> are in
> >> place.
> >
> >Maybe I missed something here, but presumably lab staff don't need to
know
> _who_
> >owns dangerous blood or other samples; they are not treating the patient,
> they
> >are analysing samples. Samples should presumably be anonymised in path.
> labs.
> >What happens at the moment (in the US, Australia, Europe?)
> >
> >Also, GEHR does not in general expect that path lab content creators will
> be
> >accessing the EHR directly - more likely they will be sending their test
> results
> >to an EHR server, probably in an HL7 message, and an HL7/GEHR bridge will
> deal
> >with it a tthe server (this may turn out to be an HL7/COAS bridge...).
> >
> >- thomas beale
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Jim Self
> Manager and Chief Developer
> VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis
> (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself)
>
>
