Re: Database design.

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, David Lodge wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:12:31 +0200, Dude VanWinkle  
> <dudevanwinkle () gmail com> wrote:
> > If you guys dont have the massive amounts of paperwork like we do,
> > then your DB would be a lot smaller quota per person.
>
> I can't remember stupid amounts of forms and my medical record used to fit  
> into less space than a passport (okay, last time I saw the paper records  
> was about 15 years ago).

Right, that's what I was thinking. Maybe Americans need huge amounts of 
bumf to ward off the lawyers, but we don't seem to need that.

> Our GPs have been computerised for several years - even when I last  
> visited one (about 8 years ago) they were using DOS based systems for  
> everything.

They use Windows now.
 
> I suppose Mr Loe hit it on the head: it depends upon which data is kept -  
> if it's just basic records and notes it's relatively cheap - just a  
> selection of interlinked database records.

Exactly what I was thinking.
 
> If they want to go down the "we keep everything, no matter how useless"  
> route that most companies seem to be jumping on, then it will cost a  
> fortune for some people. (will this include private medical care too?)
 
And if that's what they're doing, then that's why we're getting a $40
billion computer system instead of nurses and hospitals.

If they do want to keep Xrays and other big stuff, they could file the 
physical thing, and put a reference in the database to say that it exists, 
what it is, and where it is - just a hundred bytes, maybe.

I've written to my MP, asking her to put a Parliamentary Question.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.