Pro's Google Medical Records Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Pros Google aesculapian Records - Essay ExampleMedical information has long been stored by doctors, hospitals, clinics and ho rolewives. Doctors, hospitals and clinics have al shipway used the medical checkup exam exam charting system, keeping notes in thick files. Medical information was misread, misplaced, faded, and suffered a variety of accidents. Information was shared over telephones and FAX machines, or more often not shared at all. Bits and pieces would perhaps find their ways to a summer camp director, a human resource department, an insurance representative or near other store destination, where it would become buried and inaccessible to the person whose body was the subject. Each member of the medical team responsible for the wellness of a given patient, stored only a limited set of medical information and there was little to no coordination of care (Gassee, 2010). To further complicate the patients fractured health picture, given the notoriously illegible handwriti ng of overly-busy doctors, what information there was in storage was often inaccurately interpreted. Without access, a patient could not take responsibility to correct inaccurate information. Inaccuracies became compounded. Googles medical records storage system digitizes all the information and stores it in a central location, online. All members of the medical team, and patient-designated others, have uncomplicated access to accurate information, along with the patient (Seidman, 2011). Accuracy is enhanced by patient access to distinctly organized records which, like credit card information or educational transcript information, can be corrected when errors are pointed out. Security, a critical issue, is well-assured with Google. Under the old charting system, the patient could not keep race of who had what personal medical information. There was no way to take information access away from those who had access. Google increases medical information security by connectioning acce ss invitation, always generated by the patient, to specific e-dresses, keeping access ply and access-revocation power under patient control (Gassee, 2010). The patient can always see who has viewed personal medical information. Shared records are read-only (Kincaid, 2009). Probably the most important policy implemented by Google, with regard to use of their EMR, is that they will not share any information with anybody, without specific user permission to do so (Google Health, 2011). This policy clearly puts the patient, and not Google or Big Brother, in charge. Without this policy being in place and assured, those forecasting science fiction nightmares about lack of privacy and loss of self-determination, would have a point. Google is a technological giant. Such a massive undertaking as this EMR represents, requires human expertise and imposing computer capability. Google has more success in scalability than most other organizations. They have more than 2.5 million servers index a nd storing data daily, so they are experienced with this sort of thing (Gassee, 2010). Furthermore, Google has joined forces with a consortium, to develop a software platform that automatically uploads medical information from home healthcare devices (Kirkpatrick 2009). They have associated with partner hospitals, pharmacies, etc., to link information, for the convenience of doctors and patients alike (Google Health, 2011). Google