[dbussone]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Consider this:

My practice has been using electronic records for 12 years. It can be "hacked", but you have to get through 2 firewalls with dual level 128 bit encryption then a series of software passwords, and this assumes you know the network architecture. This is about the same as hacking a bank

Prior to Nov 2003, when we had paper records, all you needed to "hack" them was a screwdriver and a crowbar. (And all you needed to destroy them was a match). So what do you think is more secure?

I appreciate the extent to which you have gone to protect your patient's information. Unfortunately I need all my fingers and toes to count the number of times hospitals have had problems since electronic records have been in general use.