securing distributed partial medical records?

[Adrian Midgley]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4A6F82B3.9030201 at gmail.com>, Adrian Midgley
> <amidgley at gmail.com> writes
>> 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.
> 
> The record on the GP's computer is there "anyway". 
I'm a GP.



> It's required to
> schedule the appointment, prescribe the vaccine etc. 

We don't prescribe (most) vaccines.
The appointment, yes, admin record.


> The booklet I have
> is the 'copy' and it's handwritten by the nurse while I'm rolling down
> my sleeve, putting my jacket back on, asking how long my arm will hurt etc.

Magically, her handwriting produces the record she also makes in the GP
notes?  Or she types after you leave, perhaps.

TYping the record, and then printing a copy of that to stick in your
book seems a more logical flow to me, with no more than half as many
opportunities for error and inconsistency.  Subclassing and inheritance
of data objects or something.

> Plus (and I've never seen this before) a sticker peeled off from the
> vaccine itself.

That seems sensible, we have been doing that since 1990 or so, but for
electronic records one adds the batch number, which is more searchable
if one wants to tell all recipients of that batch something.  Having the
sticker in a book you carry is not entirely effective for that purpose,
any more than sticking it on a card was way back.



I think there is often confusion over administrative records and
clinical ones.  The clinical ones are useful, the administrative ones
may be necessary.  None of them appear without effort.