<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clinical Observations on Personal Health Records</title>
	<atom:link href="http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/</link>
	<description>Journey through Technology and Medicine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:34:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/comment-page-1/#comment-1946</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/#comment-1946</guid>
		<description>The article above which discusses USB Security Risk are valid but I think miss the point. USB drives are for the patient, not the doctor. No unknown electronic device should be connected to the office network. That is just common sense.  

USB drives are, on the other hand, more secure than data stored on the Internet. They are physical and cannot be compromised nearly as easily as a web site. They also can be used in conjunction with the Internet to provide secure risk free communication with medical facilities. 

This article is biased against USB based PHRs for some reason.  Anyone with a good understanding of computer technology can poke holes in any type of electronic system. The only save electronic device is one that is turned off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article above which discusses USB Security Risk are valid but I think miss the point. USB drives are for the patient, not the doctor. No unknown electronic device should be connected to the office network. That is just common sense.  </p>
<p>USB drives are, on the other hand, more secure than data stored on the Internet. They are physical and cannot be compromised nearly as easily as a web site. They also can be used in conjunction with the Internet to provide secure risk free communication with medical facilities. </p>
<p>This article is biased against USB based PHRs for some reason.  Anyone with a good understanding of computer technology can poke holes in any type of electronic system. The only save electronic device is one that is turned off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ruthers</title>
		<link>http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/comment-page-1/#comment-794</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ruthers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://open.medicdrive.org/blog/2007/12/17/clinical-observations-on-personal-health-records/#comment-794</guid>
		<description>&quot;This paper however does not indicate the  type of software or the application  that powers these various personal health record programs.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This paper however does not indicate the  type of software or the application  that powers these various personal health record programs.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

