[LINK] Centralised IHI architecture ...

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Stephen Wilson wrote:
> 
<snip>
> So the IHI system doesn't *explicitly* say that Steve had an episode 
> that caused him to attend an emergenecy room late one night, that he 
> went on to drug and psychiatric counselling before being admitted to an 
> acute mental health facility.  But it would all be obvious in the log.
> 
> In my view, this logging is a by-product of a centralised IHI service 
> designed in response to a particular challenge: people carrying their 
> IHIs for themselves and presenting them to clinicians as needed.  THe 
> NEHTA design has avoided this, seemingly because it's deemed too hard.  
> The logging of IHI requests is not inherently necessary for the 
> provision of IHIs, but of course, once you commit to a centralised 
> architecture, the logging is necessary (ironically) to help individuals 
> prosecute their own privacy.
> 
> There should be alternative choices for carrying one's IHI, such that 
> they way you use the IHI remains confidential between you and the 
> healthcare provider. 
<snip>

If you were concerned (and I would imagine there may be
things that you would like to be kept private). I would
suggest you should pay cash and refuse to be identified.
When you present for medical care. I can't imagine there
would be a reason why a private Medical Practitioner would
refuse you service.... if you were prepared to pay the full
amount - I recently romped up to a dentist and paid for the
service on credit card (if I was concerned about my privacy)
I guess I could have paid cash....but then there is probably
little the bank/financial institutions don't know about me.

However, given that the training of Medical Professionals
and the provision of Medical services is funded by the
state, then I believe they have a duty to be prudent with
the money we handover to them to provide medical services to
our community.

We also expect that we can turn up/be sent to an emergency
ward in a time of need....though there is a limit to what level
of services can/is provided.

and from today's newspaper:
> Doctors believe Australians should not shy away from CT scans after concerns were raised about the imaging tests being overused.
> 
> The health profession watchdog on Monday warned that doctors were ordering potentially dangerous CT scans at higher rates than in comparable countries.
> 
> "I have been alarmed at the number of these scans ordered without clinical justification," Professional Services Review (PSR) director Tony Webber states in the watchdog's latest report.
> 
> "Practitioners should always consider the risks of radiation exposure particularly in younger patients."
<http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/doctors-defend-use-of-ct-scans-20100315-q6aq.html>

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202