I don't care what encryption we are using. Therapy notes should always be in paper and locked in therapist office. Medical info should have NEVER being digitized.
Vehemently disagree. Stifling progress because of the risks involved isn't worth it, the risks need to be assessed, acknowledged and accounted for.
Digitising medical info is brilliant and extremely useful for anyone involved. Handoff between practitioners is seamless, and no more of the redundant "are you allergic to anything? any priors? are you taking any meds?", because the practitioner knows everything they need to (e.g. your dentist doesn't need to have access to your therapy notes, but should probably know all meds you're taking and all previous dentistry work done on you, wherever and wherever that happened). It would also allow for country-wide anonymous statistical analysis. Oh, everyone taking pill X is also having Y? Is there a problem there? A lot of people getting operated for A used to do Z, C, so maybe we need a better educational campaign so people know the risks? The possibilities - life saving, medical system improving, etc. are enormous.
It just needs to be handled with extreme care, because the risks are enormous. Security should be top notch, with strict access controls, anonymisation where needed, etc.
Your parent made a much narrower point than you’re debating: you argue in favor of digitizing general medical info and your parent made the point that therapy notes should be paper-only and locked. The risk/reward tradeoff is different for those than allergies, general medication etc. The information contained is much more sensitive and at the same time they’re much less likely to be passed off between therapists unfiltered and unredacted.
Both, digitizing general medical info and keeping specific bits in analog form for safety and security reasons are not mutually exclusive.
Which i assumed to be talking about all medical info.
> The information contained is much more sensitive and at the same time they’re much less likely to be passed off between therapists unfiltered and unredacted.
Yes indeed it has. However, since incidents like this, we can ask practitioners to not do this, or at least not force doctors to digitize records. There are certain things are just NOT mean to be digitized.
I agree in principle, but at the same time note that patients expect their records to be shared between practitioners, for instance when their regular therapist isn't available they would like the person that takes their place to be immediately up to speed.
The question of whether or not these records will be digitized is no longer germane, it will happen, like it or not. But what can be done is that the systems that are used to store this information pass an external review to ensure that at least the basics required for keeping such critical information safe are met.
Digitising medical info is brilliant and extremely useful for anyone involved. Handoff between practitioners is seamless, and no more of the redundant "are you allergic to anything? any priors? are you taking any meds?", because the practitioner knows everything they need to (e.g. your dentist doesn't need to have access to your therapy notes, but should probably know all meds you're taking and all previous dentistry work done on you, wherever and wherever that happened). It would also allow for country-wide anonymous statistical analysis. Oh, everyone taking pill X is also having Y? Is there a problem there? A lot of people getting operated for A used to do Z, C, so maybe we need a better educational campaign so people know the risks? The possibilities - life saving, medical system improving, etc. are enormous.
It just needs to be handled with extreme care, because the risks are enormous. Security should be top notch, with strict access controls, anonymisation where needed, etc.