Part I continued ...
What Kim and Johnson reveal is a level of transience that can be quite scary in this context. True, electronic health records can be archived and printed, but the latter surely defeats the purpose of the 'e'. Printing undermines the credentials. The virtual landscape presented in part I by checking the current status of these domains highlights the issue of ownership of data in a way that has provoked much debate in social media and the transferability of a person's data - information. If I want to move to another vendor, system, company (however the 'entity' is described) there needs to be standards and a degree of interoperability to facilitate this.
Next, we have to bow to the notion of a year on the internet compared with 'real time'. M-health was a dream a decade ago. Here is another pressure on the PHR and its family members. A public-facing health record, whatever its nomenclature, must not only be responsive to the public and professional users and the 'total stakeholder community'. Now the record must be responsive according to device: from desktop, to tablet through to mobile phone.
In 2002 the PHR project was set to run and run. It had a slow, strong pulse with speedy recovery after exertion. The PHR looked fit for Olympic* endeavors.
But then the algorithms set to change personal health care (to fuse ill-health and well-being) suffered a major arrhythmia. The fate of those who became the new PHR frontrunners, the heavyweights no less: NHS's Healthspace, the initiatives of Google and Microsoft suffered the same fate. This post is from 2009:
Kim MI, Johnson KB. Personal Health Records: Evaluation of Functionality and Utility. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2002. Mar-Apr; 9(2):171-180. Selected for inclusion in the IMIA 2003 Yearbook of Medical Informatics.
*All trademarks acknowledged.