Files and evidence

An attachment name is not a version history

“Final.pdf” is an easy filename to recognise and a poor way to identify which file was reviewed. A replacement can have the same name but different content. A message thread can also contain several attachments that look equally current.

For a clinic–laboratory handoff, the useful link is between the instruction version and the files supplied with it. The record needs to preserve which attachment accompanied the accepted instruction and identify any later replacement. Otherwise a coordinator may be unable to explain why the laboratory worked from a different reference.

A sample example makes the distinction clear. Revision 1 contains one reference file and is accepted. The clinic uploads a corrected file for revision 2. The earlier acceptance should continue to describe revision 1; the new file needs a new review rather than inheriting an approval it never received.

A file digest can help confirm whether two downloads contain the same bytes. It cannot establish whether the content is clinically suitable, whether the sender owns it, or whether disclosure is permitted. Those responsibilities still require the appropriate people and arrangements.

ConnectDent’s local demonstration associates test attachments with instruction versions and includes their bytes in the recovery backup. The demonstration uses example files. A hosted service for real records would additionally need verified identity, organisation access controls and agreed handling arrangements.

An attachment name is not a version history

Related reading