The Patient Card and its Position in a ‘New Health Care System’

  • Claus O. Köhler
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)


It has become modern to devilish patient cards as the origin of the evil. The reproaches are running from the ‘glassy patient’ via the ‘glassy physician’ to the dictatorship of the Health Care System. Mostly topics are under exposition which are not at all related to cards but to medicine itself. But these topics are becoming obvious because the card with its necessity for structuring and standardization makes it visible. For all people acting in Health Care Systems — patients including — is it much easier to decline new media with more or less relevant reasons, instead of taking into account the demands of chronic ill patients, the demands of the modern medical documentation and the demands of the actual medicine.


Health Care System Smart Card Medical Documentation Relevant Reason Actual Medicine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. BMG (eds) (1993) Zukunftsaufgabe Gesundheitsvorsorge. Hamburg: Conrad. Cicero, M.T. (1988) Uber die Ziele des menschlichen Handelns. München: Artemis.Google Scholar
  2. Donabedian, A. (1988) The Quality of Care. How can it be assessed. JAMA 250, 1743–1748.Google Scholar
  3. Ellsasser, K.-H., Kohler, C.O. (1993) Shared Care: Konzept einer verteilten Pflege — Kurz-und langfristige Perspektiven in Europa. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 24 H.4 188–198.Google Scholar
  4. Falvo, D., Woehlke, P., Deichmann, J. (1980) Relationship of physician behavior to patient compliance. Pat. Courts. Health. Educ. H4. Quarter, 185–188.Google Scholar
  5. Köhler, C.O. (1995) Patient und Gesundheitswesen oder Patient vs Gesundheitswesen. In: Kunath, H.; Straube, R.; Lochmann, U.; Kohler, C.O. (ed): Medizin und Irrformation — Neue Paradigmen in Medizinischer Informatik, Biometrig und Epidemiologie München: MMV, in print.Google Scholar
  6. McDonald, M. (1994) Where are the factors of too much expenditures in Health care in USA. Wired Magazine.Google Scholar
  7. Stacher, A. (1991)1 Diskussionsbemerkung. In: Tuchler, H.; Lutz, D. (ed): Lebensqualität und Krankheit, Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag, 207.Google Scholar
  8. Stacher, A. (1991)2 Gesundheitspolitische Aspekte. In: Tuchler, H.; Lutz, D. (ed): Lebensqualität und Krankheit Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag.Google Scholar
  9. Toffler, A. (1972) The Third Wave. New York, N.Y., USA: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Vollmer, R. (1994) Krankenhausrecht. Remagen: AOK-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Weed, L.L. (1970) Medical records, Medical Education, and Patient Care — The Problem-Oriented Records as a Basic Tool. Chicago, USA: The Press of Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  12. Weed, L.L. (1976) Pers. Mitteilung: Ownership medical record. Nato Workshop, Amsterdam. Wellbrock, R. (1995) Datenschutz und Chip-Karte. In: Ellsasser, K.-H. (ed): Chip- Karten im Gesundheitswesen, Landsberg: ecomed, in print.Google Scholar
  13. Zimpelmann, B. (1995)1 Konzept der Dokumentation und Kommunikation in der Pflege-Überleitung von Schwerkranken in den häuslichen Bereich. In: Kohler, C.O. (ed): Medizinische Dokumentation und Information–Handbuch fur Klinik und Praxis, Landsberg: ecomed, I1I-17. 3, 1–90.Google Scholar
  14. Zimpelmann, B (1995)2 Konzept der Dokumentation und Kommunikation in der Pflegeüberleitung von Schwerkranken in den häuslichen Bereich. Diplomarbeit Universität Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus O. Köhler
    • 1
  1. 1.German Cancer Research CenterSchriesheim-AltenbachGermany

Personalised recommendations