The patient is not the current HCH. However, there is an exchange of health information to treat this patient. These two statements are the opposite. How can they be done?
The patient does not feel the center. Everything about experience. In good mood of user experience. If the user does not feel the desired experience, he is not happy. No matter how difficult the product is to make the user happy. If you do not feel it, you’re not happy.
Exchanging health information now has an established structure. This architecture is a great structure. Yes, I’m talking about different structures to exchange health information. Centralized, distributed, federal and destructive. They are all great architects. Architecture is not the problem. However, our leadership in health care is seeking a new technical architecture to solve this problem.
I confirm that this is not due to the structure of health information exchange. Instead, it is because no one thinks how the patient experiences the impact of sharing health information. The structure supports the following states of patient use.
Patients who control the use of their data.
Give the patient the opportunity to set rules for using his data. This is called “permission”, but many people have a strict sense of permission. So I want to call them rules for data usage. When I use it, I mean the broader meaning. Others see “privacy”, “use” and “disclosure” as special privacy words. I do not mean the limited term “use”, but also includes the collection and distribution of data and anything else that uses data.
Yes, these rules should consider a special “processing”, but not controllable. There are still rules for treatment use. It recognizes the need for some patients with sensitive health issues or concerns about those in a privileged location.
Emergency treatment should be considered as a special case of treatment. Nowadays, it’s usually just a treat. I want to say emergency treatment as a way of giving access to more complex datasets for a wider public of nurses (including police, fire brigade, EMT, FEMA) (a special medical summary contains some important data elements). It allows the optimal stability of the patient.
Data control also requires that the patient enter their data after treatment. How to allow the patient to allow direct clinical research projects? I should give a research project full access to my history and future data.
Data usage control is important. Usage is not limitless, but enabled.
Patients know how to use their data.
Giving credentials I would say that disclosure should be considered, but there are many exceptions that lead to a blank and ineffective record. I want an access history, a record for every access to my data (Mubasher, Exchange or FHIR). Who has applied for access? What did you ask for? What did you get? When is that? Where are you? Why did they come (goal)?
None of the networks I know tell you how HIE is used to determine the patient’s data. I understand the extent of the concern of the taxed entity, which gives us the exception of the “natural process”. I do not like these exceptions, but I understand why they exist. In my opinion, any access to health information sharing should be informed by the patient.
Patients use their data.
Enable API access to applications that the patient chooses and declares. In the past, it covered the PHR statement, but this concept is now limited.