Primary care medical practices fail to recognize the seriousness of security threats to their patient and practice information. This can be attributed to a lack of understanding of security concepts, underestimation of potential threats and the difficulty in configuration of security technology countermeasures. To appreciate the factors contributing to such problems, research into general practitioner security practice and perceptions of security was undertaken. The investigation focused on demographics, actual practice, issues and barriers, and practitioner perception. Poor implementation, lack of relevant knowledge and inconsistencies between principles and practice were identified as key themes. Also the results revealed an overwhelming reliance on trust in staff and in computer information systems. This clearly identified that both cultural and technical attributes contribute to the deficiencies in information security practice. The aim of this research is to understand user needs and problems when dealing with information security practice.
Schattner P., Pleteshner C.The GPCG Computer Security Project: Final Report. Monash University, TheDepartment of General Practice, 2004.
2.
Grain H.Information systems in the new world: an emerging national approach. Australian Health Review2005; 29 (3); 292-6.
3.
Stanton J.M. , Stam K.R., Mastrangelo P., Jolton J.Analysis of end user security behaviors. Computers & Security2005; 24 (2); 124-33.
4.
Oblinger D.G. , Hawkins B.L.The myth about IT security. EDUCAUSE Review2006; 41 (3); 14-15.
5.
Brown H.View from the front line: medico-legal dangers. Wellcome Online Journal1999; 12 (3). http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/l/homlibinfactiiarc12.html .
6.
Nori A., Gunn J.Data in general practice. Australian Family Physician1998; 27 (Suppl. 2); S110-S111.
7.
Holloway F.Confidentiality: threats and limits. Psychiatry2004; 3 (3); 11-13.
8.
Cushman R.Serious technology assessment for health care information technology. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association1997; 4 (4); 259.
9.
Holzer G., Herrmann N.Informatics survey for practice managers. http://www.sadi.org.au/survey/Practice_Managers_Survey_2002.pdf, 2002.
10.
Markota M., Kern J., Svab I.Attitudes towards information system security among physicians in Croatia . Methods of Information in Medicine2001; 40 (3); 221-4.
11.
Neame R., Kluge E-H.Computerisation and health care: some worries behind the promises. British Medical Journal1999; 319 (7220); 1295.
12.
Rodrigues R.J. , Risk A.eHealth in Latin America and the Caribbean: development and policy issues. Journal of Medical Internet Research2003; 5 (1); e4.
13.
Davis L., Domm J.A., Konikoff M., Miller R.A.Attitudes of first-year medical students toward the confidentiality of computerized patient records. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association1999; 6 (1); 53.
14.
Zakaria N., Stanton J., Stam K.Exploring security and privacy issues in hospital information system: an information boundary theory perspective. AMIA 2003 Symposium Proceedings 2003; 1059.
15.
Cork R.D., Detmer W.M., Friedman C.P.Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association1998 ; 5 (2); 164-76.
16.
Post G.V., Kagan A.Information security tradeoffs: the user perspective. EDPACS: The EDP Audit , Control and Security Newsletter2006; 34 (3); 1-10.
17.
Stetson D.Achieving effective medical information security: understanding the culture . Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science1997; 23 (3); 17-21.
18.
Von Solms R. , von Solms B.From policies to culture. Computers & Security2004; 23 (4); 275-9.
19.
Williams P A H.Medical data security: are you informed or afraid?International Journal of Information and Computer Security2007; 1 (3); 414-429.
Williams P A H.The role of standards in medical information security: an opportunity for improvement. In Arabnia H R, Aissi S eds The 2006 International Conference on Security & Management (SAM'06), 26-29 June, Las Vegas 415-20.
22.
Karyda M., Kiountouzis E., Kokolakis S.Information systems security policies: a contextual perspective. Computers & Security2005; 24 (3); 246-60.
23.
Landwehr C.E.Computer security. International Journal of Information Security2001; 1 (1); 3-13.
24.
Tsoumas V., Tryfonas T.From risk analysis to effective security management: towards an automated approach. Information Management & Computer Security2004; 12 (1); 91-101.
25.
Doherty N.F., Fulford H.Do information security policies reduce the incidence of security breaches? An exploratory analysis. Information Resources Management Journal2005; 18 (4); 21-40.
26.
Bauchner H., Simpson L., Chessare J.Changing physician behaviour. Archives of Disease in Childhood2001; 84 (6); 459-62.
27.
Greco P.J., Eisenberg J.M.Changing physicians' practices. New England Journal of Medicine1993; 329 (17); 1271-4.
28.
Shanks G., Rouse A., Arnott D.A review of approaches to research and scholarship in information systems . Working paper series. Department of Information Systems, Monash University, 1993.
29.
Walsham G.The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research1995; 6 (4); 376-94.
30.
Klein H.K., Myers M.D.A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly1999 ; 23 (1); 67-94.
31.
Dick B.What is action research? Web page. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.html , 1999.
32.
Williams P A H.Appraising information security rituals in primary care medical practice. In Furnell S M, Dowland P S eds Sixth International Network Conference (INC2006), 11-14 July 2006, Plymouth, UK 261-8. University of Plymouth.
Furnell S.M. , Jusoh A., Katsabas D.The challenges of understanding and using security: a survey of end-users. Computers & Security2006; 25 (1); 27-35.
35.
Schultz E.The human factor in security. Computers & Security2005; 24 (6); 425-6.
