I’ll admit, I’m pretty frustrated right now lol. me and my doctor have been trying to submit a referral to a specialist but for the last several weeks, when i call them, they still haven’t gotten it yet. they told me it’s because they only have one fax machine so it refuses any incoming faxes if it’s in the middle of printing a different one.

my problem is, why haven’t we come up with a more modern and secure way of sending medical files?!?! am i crazy for thinking this is a super unprofessional and unnecessary barrier to care?

luckily I’m mobile enough to drive a physical copy to their location, but not everybody who needs to see this type of doctor can do that, nor should they have to.

  • commandar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Speaking as someone who works directly in the field: this is just plain factually incorrect. Encrypted email is compliant with patient privacy regulations in the US.

    The issue is entirely cultural. Faxes are embedded in many workflows across the industry and people are resistant to change in general. They use faxes because it’s what they’re used to. Faxes are worse in nearly every way than other regulatory-compliant means of communication outside of “this is what we’re used to and already setup to do.”

    I am actively working on projects that involve taking fax machines away from clinicians and backend administrators. There are literally zero technical or regulatory hurdles; the difficulty is entirely political.

    • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      And just try to get regular people to use email encryption. Yes, it could be signed to show that it hasn’t been altered, but then most users can’t even figure out where a file has been saved.
      So they use faxes.

      Here (not US) they’ve tried implementing a dedicated “secure email platform” for medical professionals so that they can exchange patient data. It’s both progress and kind of idiotic, but it’s not very widely used (because now, they have yet another email address to manage, on top of the six they already have to use).

      • commandar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        50 minutes ago

        Secure email is nearly always implemented as a portal-based system in practice. It’s also typically only used for one-off exchanges. It’s not our first-line method of communication, but it gets used within the facility literally every day.

        HIE portals are more commonly used for provider-to-provider exchange that doesn’t justify full data integration.

        At any rate, the fundamental point stands: regulatory compliance has absolutely nothing to do with why faxes are still in use in the industry.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      We need to try and bankrupt any company that produces fax machines.

      The industry will need to adapt once fax machines aren’t produced anymore.

      • yabai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Unfortunately, supply and demand dictates that new manufacturers will pop up in place

    • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      I work with healthcare software so I can echo most of what you’re saying.

      The thing is the lowest common denominator is a fax (usually a fax server that creates a PDF or TIFF of what comes over the wire), so that’s what people go with. It’s the interoperability between different systems that’s the problem. There’s no one standard…except for faxes.

      • commandar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        There’s no one standard…except for faxes.

        HL7 and FHIR have been around for decades. Exchanging data is actually the easy part.

        The problem is typically more on the business logic side of things. Good example is the fact that matching a patient to a particular record between facilities is a much harder problem than people realize because there are so many ways to implement patient identifiers differently and for whoever inputs a record to screw up entry. Another is the fact that sex/gender codes can be implemented wildly differently between facilities. Matching data between systems is the really hard part.

        (I used to do HL7 integration, but have since moved more to the systems side of things).

        • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I feel this - I’m often on the other end working with data from clinicians in the field for massive studies. The forms that come in can have an infinite number of possibilities just for noting sex. Enough so that our semantic layer needs a human reviewer because we keep finding new ways field clinicians have of noting this. Now imagine that over the whole gamut of identifiers.

          tl:dr - Humans are almost always the problem in data harmonization.

        • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I work in a particularly niche area (home infusion/home medical equipment) and while HL7 and FHIR are indeed things, practically no software that was built for those lines of business had any sort of module for that. We have a FHIR interface now and…no one uses it. They prefer faxes.

          • commandar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            That’s likely a peculiarity of the niche you’re in. HL7/FIHR are the norm for enterprise-level systems. Hospitals couldn’t function without it and at any given time we typically have multiple HL7 integration projects rolling just as a mid-size regional.

            Definitely less defined in the small-practice and patient-side space. Though, like I said, the big problem there ends up being data normalization anyway.

      • commandar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        To be clear, this is specifically what I was calling incorrect:

        An email, even an encrypted one, is not.

        Faxes are one compliant means of electronic communication. They’re just not the only one. Secure email is fine.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      “embedded in many workflows”

      Key statement right there.

      And once people see what that really means, and what it would take to move past it (including time, cost, and risk), they may start to understand. You’re dealing with it first hand, so you know what’s involved.

      It became the de facto way to send stuff with high confidence it went to the right place. Then tech addressed the paper-to-paper over one phone line issue with modem banks into a fax server. So all the same fundamental comm tech (so fully backwards-compatible), but a better solution for the company with that infrastructure. Such a company has little motivation to completely change to something new, since they’d have to retain this for anyone that hasn’t switched. Chicken-and-egg problem, that’s slowly moving forward.

      It’ll be a long time before it’s gone completely. Perhaps in 20 years, but I suspect fax will still be around as a fallback/compatibility.

      • commandar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Such a company has little motivation to completely change to something new, since they’d have to retain this for anyone that hasn’t switched.

        They’ve had motivation since the HITECH Act passed in 2009. Medicare/Medicaid compensation is increasingly directly tied to real adoption of modern electronic records, availability, and interoperability. Most healthcare orgs rely heavily on Medicare/Medicaid revenue, so that’s a big, big deal.

        You’re dealing with it first hand, so you know what’s involved.

        I do. Which is why I’m actively and aggressively removing fax machines from our environment. Efaxing (e.g., fax-to-email gateways) will stick around for back-compatibility purposes with outside organizations, but the overall industry trend is to do everything you can to minimize the footprint of fax machines because they’ve traditionally been used in ways that will cost the company serious revenue if they cause you to miss CMS measures.