Secure e-Healthcare Information Systems

  • Charles A. Shoniregun
  • Kudakwashe Dube
  • Fredrick Mtenzi
Part of the Advances in Information Security book series (ADIS, volume 53)


The e-Healthcare information systems (e-HIS) are, by nature, network-based and internet-enabled. In the developed countries, e-HIS typically operate in regional networks and international health management organisations and trusts. Therefore, e-HIS must meet the requirements of new emerging paradigms and international organisational phenomenon. These requirements include the support for distribution, cooperation and communication. However, the success and acceptance of e- HIS may not be guaranteed in the absence of security and privacy service components, incorporation of standards-based interoperability that takes into account the legal, ethical and organisational policy provision. The typical e-HIS are e- Healthcare record systems (EHR systems) and electronic-personal healthcare record systems (EPHR systems). The EHR systems are created, maintained by clinicians and healthcare organisations, while EPHR systems are created, maintained and controlled, at least in theory, by the individual subject of the health information. The concept of the EHRs is fairly older than the concept of EPHR, which is emerging coupled with the patient-centred paradigm. Consequently, the EHR systems are fairly established as compared to EPHR systems which are starting to be introduced.


Privacy Protection Clinical Decision Support System Healthcare Information Privacy Provision Privacy Breach 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BBC (2008) Palin e-mail hack details emerge. BBC News (Online) Friday, 19 September 2008,
  2. Eddy DM (2005) Evidence-Based Medicine: A Unified Approach. Health Aff 24(1):9–17,DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.9,, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Field M, Lohr K (1990) Attributes of good practice guidelines. In: Field M, Lohr K (eds) Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 53–77Google Scholar
  4. Greenhalgh T, Wood GW, Bratan T, Stramer K, Hinder S (2008) Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record and healthspace: qualitative study. British Medical Journal 0:1–11, DOI http://doi:10.1136/bmj.a114, Google Scholar
  5. HPP (2008) Health privacy stories. Health Privacy Project August 2008,
  6. Jensen T, Larsen KH, Kofod-Petersen A (2006) Towards a norwegian implementation of electronic personal health records. In: Kofod-Petersen A, Brasethvik T (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronic Personal Health Records 2006 (ISePHR 2006), Trondheim,Norway, September 28, 2006, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  7. Mandl KD, Simons WW, Crawford WCR, Abbett JM (2007) Indivo: a personally controlled health record for health information exchange and communication. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 7:25, DOI 1472-6947-7-25, pMID: 17850667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Perreault L, Metzger J (1999) A pragmatic framework for understanding clinical decision support. Journal of Healthcare InformationManagement 13(2):5 – 12Google Scholar
  9. Sax U, Kohane I, Mandl KD (2005) Wireless technology infrastructures for authentication of patients: Pki that rings. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 12(3):263–8, DOI M1681, pMID: 15684133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shortliffe E (1986) Medical expert systems knowledge tools for physicians. Western Journal of Medicine 145:830 – 839Google Scholar
  11. Wyatt J, Spiegelhalter D (1991) Know-Based Systems in Medicine, Applications and Evaluation, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, chap Evaluatingmedical expert systems: what to test, and how?, pp 274 –290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles A. Shoniregun
    • 1
  • Kudakwashe Dube
    • 2
  • Fredrick Mtenzi
    • 3
  1. 1.Infonomics SocietyUnited Kingdom and Ireland
  2. 2.Computer Science and Information Technology School of Engineering & Advanced Technology (SEAT)Massey UniversityNew Zealand
  3. 3.Dublin Institute of TechnologyIreland

Personalised recommendations