Dit artikel is een vertaling van Al je medische gegevens opslaan bij Google of Microsoft? Ik dacht het niet!

In the Netherlands we are already trying several years to do something with electronic health records. The dutch council for health (Raad voor de Volksgezondheid) wrote in 2005 that it would be a very good idea to introduce national electronic health records. The national electronic medication records had to be ready in 2006, but they are still not available. Not only in the Netherlands people are busy creating electronic health records. This weeks the medical blogosphere buzzes with the ideas of Google and Microsoft to start electronic health records.

The New York Times wrote an extensive article about the potential ideas of Google and Microsoft. And also the first screenshots of the Google application are available on the internet. But is it a good idea to store your medical data at Google or Microsoft.

Every story has different viewpoints. This is also applicable to the electronic health records. What is a doctors’ opinion about this? What can a physician with it? For a doctor it is great to be able to view to most up-to-date data of a patient 24/7. But in the Netherlands the law writes that a doctor cannot view the patient data without a proper indication. A doctor can only look at that part of the patients’ data that has a relation with the medical problem he sphysicianhows up with. So, if a patient presents himself with a sore toe, the doctor should not that the patient is treated for a VD last week. At this moment this is not implemented in the systems of the hospitals. It is a technically difficult to implement. How does the system know what information is relevant for a problem? If your toe is inflamed your physician may see your paracetamol use, but not your viagra use.

But why do we do this so difficult? Why do we protect the privacy of people in such a way in the Netherlands? You could say that a doctor always needs all information, because a physician needs the total overview to treat the patient in a correct way. It is possible for a physician to view all information if the patient gives his consent (opt-in).

But is it all so great for physicians, these electronic health records? Not everybody thinks so. Especially if patient can have access to their records. Google even proposes that patients should be in charge of their health information.

At Google, we feel patients should be in charge of their health information, and they should be able to grant their health care providers, family members, or whomever they choose, access to this information. Google Health was developed to meet this need.

A patient in charge, how terrible. That is what Graham van Over my med body! writes:

Patients without medical training but that actually understand all the nuances of their diseases and medications, I applaud you; most of your fellow patients, however, don’t. I strongly advocate for patients to read and learn as much as they can about their diseases and drugs they take, but this [to put patients in charge of their medical data] is not the way to go about it.

Would a dutch patient change things in his records that a physician added? At first you would say no. But there are nuances. A dutch patient has the right to remove certain data from his records. He does not need the permission of a physician to do this. The physician can charge the patient a reasonable fee for this removal. Besides this it is possible to change records if the physician agrees. So dutch patients already are to some extent in charge of his medical records. He has the possibility to change or remove records.

But what about the patient? What does he think about it? It is great for the patient, because he does not have to tell his story every time. The physician just has to look at his records and the physician knows all. So the physician is able to treat the patient in the best way. Also the patient has a direct overview of his relevant and possibly less relevant medical information.

But who is the owner of the medical data? What can a physician do with this data? These questions are even more complex if a third party stores the medical data. How about the privacy of a patient? Several governmental parties are involved in this. We have the College for protection of personal data (College ter Bescherming van persoonsgegevens). They have written a tutorial (in dutch) how and when personal data may be exchanged. And a there a norm Securing health data. This norm is so strict that no dutch health institution meets the conditions.

But what is the relation all this with the title of this article : Store my medical data at Google or Microsoft? I don’t think so! From different viewpoints it seems an extremely good idea to share your medical data with your physician(s) at all times. But the important aspect in the last sentence is the sharing with physicians. Off course physicians cannot organize their computer infrastructure anymore. So I do not mind that certain computer specialists have access to my personal medical data under strict conditions. But to give Google or Microsoft access to my medical data? I don’t think so! I have no idea about the intentions of Google and Microsoft, but making a lot of money.

Stem op dit artikel of voeg het toe aan:

Dit artikel werd aangemaakt op maandag 20 augustus 2007 om 16:35 en werd geplaatst in EPD, english. U kunt de reacties van dit artikel volgen via de RSS 2.0 feed. Je kan een reactie plaatsen, of een trackback doen van je eigen site.

Lees ook: Medicine 2.0 carnival at MedBlog.nl|| Microsoft komt met gezondheidskluis (healthvault.com)|| How do I get and store all my electronic information?|| Paper storage facility hospital Westfriesgasthuis for sale|| Al je medische gegevens opslaan bij Google of Microsoft? Ik dacht het niet!||