securing distributed partial medical records?

[Adrian Midgley]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4A6F6415.7040401 at gmail.com>, Adrian Midgley
> <amidgley at gmail.com> writes
>>>> The result is a second partial system.
>>>
>>> It's partial for things like vaccinations only if it's not updated
>>> properly, and the parents fail to complain that it's not been updated
>>> properly. The public policy question in our nanny state is "who has the
>>> most responsibility for making sure it is complete".
>>
>> And if I want to write to everyone who has, or has not, had a particular
>> immunisation, test or whatever?
>>
>> Not useful.  Therefore partial.
>>
>> It doesn't talk.
> 
> Only if you've forgotten to make your own copy of the same records. When
> I had my travel jabs the nurse was using the VDU, so the GP practice
> must have its independent record (and somewhere there must be another
> record for stock control and billing purposes).

Some things are done in one place, some in another, and making two
independent records takes twice as long as making one, and nearly twice
as long as making one and printing a label to go in a book.

Which is designed out of the system.


The health visitors, BTW, keep their growth records on their own stationery.

It isn't working very well.


-- 
A