Re: Would patients like to be able to email their doctors?

From: Carey Gregory (tiredofspam123_at_comcast.net)
Date: 12/17/04 

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:26:07 -0500

"cicero" <maisenberg@comcast.net> wrote:

>Not to try to oversimplify, but, while you are correct--that boththe
>DEMAND--and the rationality of meeting it ARE here-there is a 'legacy'
>problem. The problem for implementation on which most health
>informatics professsionals seem to agree (and which the HHS NHII/NHIN
>proceeding seeks to resolve) is the need to have all the different
>systems (at least 4000 clinical "networks in the US today) that would
>allow you to REALLY "email" your doctor not only TALK to each other,
>but AUTHENTICATE their USERS and DEVICES to each other. This means
>authenticate at the technology/device/platform/network level (clinic
>data base A "knows" that blood gas monitor from lab B is legitimate,
>licensed and calibrated), and at the "credentialing" AND at the
>party/identity levels (patient knows--or has given permisison,
>e.g.--for current encounter provider (say, vacation ER) to extract last
>encounter data from stored record (say, hometown hospital's PMR) and
>retrieve image of xray, eliminating need for ER to repeat.(you produce
>authenticating credential to ER.) Even tho' they've never communicated
>before, in an NHIN era, ER and hometown hospital use same
>authentication standard, which recognizes AND authenticates YOU to
>them, AND THEM TO EACH OTHER, and retrieves data exchange permissions
>previously agreed to by everyone when they become part of the network).

You summarized the major requirements fairly well. Now, can you name any
industry that has comparable security and quality assurance requirements,
and which has successfully implemented a system of comparable size,
complexity, and diversity? Can you name one that's even close?

Quantcast