Overview of shorthand medical glossary (OMG) study

J. Politis, S. Lau, J. Yeoh, C. Brand, David Russell, D. Liew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Shorthand is commonplace in clinical notation. While many abbreviations are standard and widely accepted, an increasing number are non-standard and/or unrecognisable. Aim: We sought to describe the frequency of inappropriate and ambiguous shorthand in discharge summaries. Methods: Eighty electronic discharge summaries from the four General Medical Units at the Royal Melbourne Hospital were randomly extracted from the hospital's electronic records. Extraction was stratified by the four units and by the four quarters between July 2012 and June 2013. All abbreviations were assigned into one of four categories according to appropriateness: 1. 'Universally accepted and understood even without context'; 2. 'Understood when in context'; 3. 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous'; and 4. 'Unknown'. These categories were determined by the authors, which included junior and senior medical staff. Results: The 80 discharge summaries contained 840 different abbreviations used on 6269 occasions. Of all words, 20.1% were abbreviations. Of the 6269 occasions of shorthand, 6.8% were categorised as 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous' or 'Unknown' (category 3 or 4), equating to 1.4% of all words, and an average of 5.4 words per discharge summary. Conclusion: Abbreviations are common in electronic discharge summaries, occurring at a frequency of one in five words. While the majority of shorthand used seems to be appropriate, the use of inappropriate, ambiguous or unknown shorthand is still frequent. This has implications for safe and effective patient care and highlights the need for better awareness and education regarding use of shorthand in clinical notation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423-427
Number of pages5
JournalInternal Medicine Journal
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2015
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Internal medicine
  • Patient care
  • Patient discharge
  • Shorthand

Cite this

Politis, J. ; Lau, S. ; Yeoh, J. ; Brand, C. ; Russell, David ; Liew, D. / Overview of shorthand medical glossary (OMG) study. In: Internal Medicine Journal. 2015 ; Vol. 45, No. 4. pp. 423-427.
@article{7c27c90cd71e4296aaf67f07a056c074,
title = "Overview of shorthand medical glossary (OMG) study",
abstract = "Background: Shorthand is commonplace in clinical notation. While many abbreviations are standard and widely accepted, an increasing number are non-standard and/or unrecognisable. Aim: We sought to describe the frequency of inappropriate and ambiguous shorthand in discharge summaries. Methods: Eighty electronic discharge summaries from the four General Medical Units at the Royal Melbourne Hospital were randomly extracted from the hospital's electronic records. Extraction was stratified by the four units and by the four quarters between July 2012 and June 2013. All abbreviations were assigned into one of four categories according to appropriateness: 1. 'Universally accepted and understood even without context'; 2. 'Understood when in context'; 3. 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous'; and 4. 'Unknown'. These categories were determined by the authors, which included junior and senior medical staff. Results: The 80 discharge summaries contained 840 different abbreviations used on 6269 occasions. Of all words, 20.1{\%} were abbreviations. Of the 6269 occasions of shorthand, 6.8{\%} were categorised as 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous' or 'Unknown' (category 3 or 4), equating to 1.4{\%} of all words, and an average of 5.4 words per discharge summary. Conclusion: Abbreviations are common in electronic discharge summaries, occurring at a frequency of one in five words. While the majority of shorthand used seems to be appropriate, the use of inappropriate, ambiguous or unknown shorthand is still frequent. This has implications for safe and effective patient care and highlights the need for better awareness and education regarding use of shorthand in clinical notation.",
keywords = "Communication, Internal medicine, Patient care, Patient discharge, Shorthand",
author = "J. Politis and S. Lau and J. Yeoh and C. Brand and David Russell and D. Liew",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/imj.12668",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "423--427",
journal = "Internal Medicine Journal",
issn = "1444-0903",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Overview of shorthand medical glossary (OMG) study. / Politis, J.; Lau, S.; Yeoh, J.; Brand, C.; Russell, David; Liew, D.

In: Internal Medicine Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, 01.04.2015, p. 423-427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Overview of shorthand medical glossary (OMG) study

AU - Politis, J.

AU - Lau, S.

AU - Yeoh, J.

AU - Brand, C.

AU - Russell, David

AU - Liew, D.

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Background: Shorthand is commonplace in clinical notation. While many abbreviations are standard and widely accepted, an increasing number are non-standard and/or unrecognisable. Aim: We sought to describe the frequency of inappropriate and ambiguous shorthand in discharge summaries. Methods: Eighty electronic discharge summaries from the four General Medical Units at the Royal Melbourne Hospital were randomly extracted from the hospital's electronic records. Extraction was stratified by the four units and by the four quarters between July 2012 and June 2013. All abbreviations were assigned into one of four categories according to appropriateness: 1. 'Universally accepted and understood even without context'; 2. 'Understood when in context'; 3. 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous'; and 4. 'Unknown'. These categories were determined by the authors, which included junior and senior medical staff. Results: The 80 discharge summaries contained 840 different abbreviations used on 6269 occasions. Of all words, 20.1% were abbreviations. Of the 6269 occasions of shorthand, 6.8% were categorised as 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous' or 'Unknown' (category 3 or 4), equating to 1.4% of all words, and an average of 5.4 words per discharge summary. Conclusion: Abbreviations are common in electronic discharge summaries, occurring at a frequency of one in five words. While the majority of shorthand used seems to be appropriate, the use of inappropriate, ambiguous or unknown shorthand is still frequent. This has implications for safe and effective patient care and highlights the need for better awareness and education regarding use of shorthand in clinical notation.

AB - Background: Shorthand is commonplace in clinical notation. While many abbreviations are standard and widely accepted, an increasing number are non-standard and/or unrecognisable. Aim: We sought to describe the frequency of inappropriate and ambiguous shorthand in discharge summaries. Methods: Eighty electronic discharge summaries from the four General Medical Units at the Royal Melbourne Hospital were randomly extracted from the hospital's electronic records. Extraction was stratified by the four units and by the four quarters between July 2012 and June 2013. All abbreviations were assigned into one of four categories according to appropriateness: 1. 'Universally accepted and understood even without context'; 2. 'Understood when in context'; 3. 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous'; and 4. 'Unknown'. These categories were determined by the authors, which included junior and senior medical staff. Results: The 80 discharge summaries contained 840 different abbreviations used on 6269 occasions. Of all words, 20.1% were abbreviations. Of the 6269 occasions of shorthand, 6.8% were categorised as 'Understood but inappropriate and/or ambiguous' or 'Unknown' (category 3 or 4), equating to 1.4% of all words, and an average of 5.4 words per discharge summary. Conclusion: Abbreviations are common in electronic discharge summaries, occurring at a frequency of one in five words. While the majority of shorthand used seems to be appropriate, the use of inappropriate, ambiguous or unknown shorthand is still frequent. This has implications for safe and effective patient care and highlights the need for better awareness and education regarding use of shorthand in clinical notation.

KW - Communication

KW - Internal medicine

KW - Patient care

KW - Patient discharge

KW - Shorthand

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964265707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/imj.12668

DO - 10.1111/imj.12668

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 423

EP - 427

JO - Internal Medicine Journal

JF - Internal Medicine Journal

SN - 1444-0903

IS - 4

ER -