My views haven't changed. Obviously the patient can't do it him/herself. This typically requires an agent involved, but the patient is a key ingredient of the process. The patient doesn't have the record in his/her possession although they are likely to have a copy updated to a certain point in time. The idea we proposed would work across international boundaries. It basically has a mechanism to identify a patient and then link multiple records together dynamically to create a view of the medical record that could be used in multiple locations for different purposes. The patient would have the ability to control access to the information. The author of the data (presumably the GP) would have control over the viewing of the data they generated until they sign off on it.
Dave Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: > > 10 years ago! Do you think that is still valid, now? > Have you changed your views since then? > > If the patients record is held in different places, > how does the patient keep up with the changes? Is it > his responsibility to keep it completed and upto date? > > Maybe he should carry the version wth him in a e-card > of some sort, especially in this era, when people are > moving from country to country and suddenly need their > records in a strange land! > > --- David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:forslund%40mail.com>> wrote: > > > Absolutely not! I do want the patient to be in > > control > > of his/her data, with GPs assisting. I believe in a > > distributed > > EMR with control by the patient. Sometimes we > > called > > this a Virtual Medical/Patient Record (about 10 > > years ago in a > > journaled publication). > > > > Dave > > Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: > > > > > > IT would seem to me that, what you favour is a > > system > > > where, all patients will have their EMR with their > > GPs > > > and nobody else and nowhere else. What is done in > > a > > > hospital encounter, for example a Urological > > Surgery, > > > Cardioloical tests, CT scan reports, will be sent > > to > > > the GP for inclusion in the EMR. For this these > > must > > > be interoperable with each other. > > > > > > Making the GP the crux of EMR development, > > recording > > > and storing, makes sense as it is patient based. > > He > > > will decide as to whom he will provide access? HE > > has > > > also to ensure access without fail to the patient > > in > > > an emergency, which may happen in another country > > at > > > an ungodly hour. > > > > > > Unfortunately not every country has such a well > > > developed, GP based system, as in the UK. > > > > > > Nandalal > > > > > > --- Adrian Midgley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:amidgley2%40defoam.net> > > > <mailto:amidgley2%40defoam.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > David Forslund wrote: > > > > > > > > I tend to think that my notes, made by me, and > > > > sitting where they > > > > currently sit, upstairs in my Practice building, > > > > mean something. > > > > > > > > It is clear to me that anyone else who gets to > > read > > > > them, now or later, > > > > makes their own judgement about what they mean > > and > > > > to what degree of > > > > relevance and reliability, and so do I for > > others' > > > > notes. > > > > > > > > So providing the means for other people to > > negotiate > > > > access to my stored > > > > notes seems sensible, they will interpret them > > in > > > > the light of whatever > > > > is going on, and the next person will do _their_ > > own > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > Pushing them all into one heap, or passing them > > > > around into everyone's > > > > heap until none of us know which are ours and > > which > > > > are some > > > > school-leaver's is a different and semantically > > > > inferior process. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > > > >
