AnsweredAssumed Answered

Protection of Interactive PDF?

Question asked by 34South on May 12, 2017
Latest reply on May 16, 2017 by beverly

If one inserts a multipage PDF in a container field and optimises the field for interactive content, thereby allowing the user to scroll through the PDF within FM, the content of the field, that is the PDF, can be deleted or exported. If one turns off field entry in browse mode or restricts access through security settings, this is prevented but then the container is also no longer interactive. It seems therefore that one requires access to the container field to be able to display the content interactively, that is to see all the pages of the document. It might seem illogical to want to restrict access to something which is accessible anyway but, when one does not want the PDF to be disseminated by other means but rather strictly contained within FM, this presents a problem. For example, patient operation notes are for eyes only to those given access to the FM solution. Ideally, one wants to avoid the possibility of such information being exported since this constitutes a risk of third party access. Also, to prevent possible deletion of the PDF, one has to lock down the field,  and that again deactivates the interactivity. Using a portal might have helped since one can prevent deletion of the portal content but interactive content of course does not work within portals.

 

As a aside, I have found a way of displaying more than one PDF interactively without the use of a portal, for example to display multiple surgeries in the same patient, by presenting the user with a list of surgical dates via a portal where the relationship relies on the hospital number alone and, when a particular date in that list is selected, display the relevant PDF based on a relationship which relies both on the patient hospital number AND the date selected. That way, more than one PDF can be displayed in turn interactively for the same patient since the PDF is not displayed in a portal but as a single container field based on the relationship I described. However, the problem I described above regarding protection of the field unfortunately remains.

 

Any ideas?

Outcomes