securing distributed partial medical records?

[Adrian Midgley]

signup at bealoid.co.uk wrote:
> Before this develops into a three hundred post thread about CfH: I don't
> like current medical IT systems and I strongly believe there is a need
> for better records sharing, but I don't think CfH is anywhere near
> getting it right.

Well yes.  That would be a reason for doing it differently than CfH
proposed.





>> There would be considerably more people in the chain, and the audit
>> trails in more places.
> 
> There aren't that many people in the chain at the moment, 

We may b agreeing that more is better?



> Please could you clarify this?  And explain why it feels as though one
> hospital has little access to records of stuff done in another
> hospital?  
Handwritten, on paper.


> [snip]
>> enabling a small number of existing systems to be questioned by a
>> small number of existing systems over a network.
> 
> This would be a better way to do things.  Who's going to tell the GPs in
> a PCT/RHA/SHA that they all have to standardise on one system?
Fujitus, Accenture, BT.  Or perhaps not.


> I'd be interested to see how many Caldicott Guardians are GPs vs
> Practice Managers.


I employ a manager.  Some people think it is the other way round.
If he is the Caldicott Grauniad, it is because I want that job done that
way.  I also have vicarious liability for how he does it.

-- 
A