Translation needed please!

Diamond Doll

Can I just ask if anyone can let me know what the below means? It's from a letter that a GP wrote as a referral for a child for a chest Xray.

"no F Hx asthma
o/e cvs nad pr 120 resp nad rr 30 ent nad temp 36.7
CXR"

(That's obviously not the full letter, that's just the bit I couldn't understand!)

By the way, in case of any confusion, I'm not looking for medical advice ... he's already had the Xray and we're waiting on the results, I'm just wondering for my own curiosity!

Taco Chips

It would be a better idea to clarify with your GP. But from what I know of short hand

"No family history of asthma

Observations/exam: Cardiovascular system no abnormality discovered, pulse rate 120. Resp system no abnormality discovered, resp rate 30. Ear nose throat no abnormality discovered. Temperature 36.7 celsius. "

Hope this helps. Just to add that is what I know of short hand. It may or may not be what your GP meant and I'm not saying that it is what they meant. Really if you're curious the best is to get direct clarification.

Diamond Doll

Taco Chips wrote: »

It would be a better idea to clarify with your GP. But from what I know of short hand

"No family history of asthma

Observations/exam: Cardiovascular system no abnormality discovered, pulse rate 120. Resp system no abnormality discovered, resp rate 30. Ear nose throat no abnormality discovered. Temperature 36.7 celsius. "

Hope this helps.

I wasn't at the GP appointment, would have clarified it with him otherwise. Thanks for that!

RobFowl

FWIW that would be my take on the note as well

Diamond Doll

Thanks for the above, I'm back looking for another translation!

Again, not a case of looking for medical advice, I've been prescribed it and know what it is and what it's for and how to apply it, I'm just curious as to what the shorthand means!

This is what it says on the prescription.

"Dovobet 60gx2 50 mcg / g gel, 1 application daily, (60 gr gel)"
So I'm guessing it's two 60g tubes (do I need to pick them both up at the same time?) but what does the "50 mcg / g gel" bit mean?

Thanks!

Taco Chips

Thats the concentration of active medication in the gel. It means there are 50 micrograms of medicine per each gram of overall gel.

Mrs OBumble

Taco Chips wrote: »

Just to add that is what I know of short hand. It may or may not be what your GP meant and I'm not saying that it is what they meant. Really if you're curious the best is to get direct clarification.

Isn't it rather concerning that the shorthand that a doctor uses isn't consistent?

If the recipient of a note has to go back to the author to find out what they wrote, then it really negates the point of writing a note in the first place.

RobFowl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Isn't it rather concerning that the shorthand that a doctor uses isn't consistent?

If the recipient of a note has to go back to the author to find out what they wrote, then it really negates the point of writing a note in the first place.

Those notes are all using standard and well recognised abbreviations

Icemancometh

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Isn't it rather concerning that the shorthand that a doctor uses isn't consistent?

If the recipient of a note has to go back to the author to find out what they wrote, then it really negates the point of writing a note in the first place.

The prescription isn't for the patient to read, it's for the pharmacist to know what medication to dispense, and what instructions to provide with it.

echo beach

Icemancometh wrote: »

The prescription isn't for the patient to read, it's for the pharmacist to know what medication to dispense, and what instructions to provide with it.

As a pharmacist I have to disagree. The day of illegible prescriptions in Latin is long past. The doctor, pharmacist and patient should work together and that can't happen if the most important person, the patient, is deliberately excluded and keep in the dark.
Nobody should be getting a prescription without being told what it is for and what they can expect from the treatment. The pharmacist can then provide more detailed information and instructions but many medicines have several uses, e.g some anti-depressants are also used for certain types of pain, so if the patient doesn't know what the prescription is then the pharmacist will have a difficult job helping them.
Many patients now check out what they have been prescribed on the internet before getting the prescription dispensed and while there is a lot of poor information online most come informed and are able to ask relevant questions and so get the maximum benefit.

Mrs OBumble

Icemancometh wrote: »

The prescription isn't for the patient to read, it's for the pharmacist to know what medication to dispense, and what instructions to provide with it.

Let's pretend that I accept that the information should not be available for the patient to read (I don't, but it's another argument).

Surely it should be written in a way that another health professional can know with 100% certainly what was meant? Because if they say "It may or may not be what your GP meant", then the note is pretty much useless as a method of communicating between the GP and the other health professional.

Icemancometh

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Let's pretend that I accept that the information should not be available for the patient to read (I don't, but it's another argument).

Surely it should be written in a way that another health professional can know with 100% certainly what was meant? Because if they say "It may or may not be what your GP meant", then the note is pretty much useless as a method of communicating between the GP and the other health professional.

I can 100% read those notes, and I'm sure echo beach can as well. As Rob pointed out earlier, all of those abbreviations are accepted shorthand in medical notes.

I'd like to think the day of paternalistic doctors is gone. The treatment regimen should be fully discussed and agreed upon between the doctor and the patient, prior to any prescription being written. If you are at the point of reading the prescription before you know what the treatment is, I suggest you consider going to another doctor.

The shorthand is a practical matter. Whether it's documenting examination findings on admission to hospital (o/e HR 80, BP 120/80, S1-S2, nil added changes to observation and examination, heart rate 80 beats per minute, blood pressure 120 systolic 80 diastolic, heart sounds one and two audible with no added sounds) or a standard prescription (amoxicillin 500mg tds po x 1/52 versus amoxicillin 500milligrams three times a day by mouth for one week) it's a lot easier to write and takes up less space.

Icemancometh

echo beach wrote: »

As a pharmacist I have to disagree. The day of illegible prescriptions in Latin is long past. The doctor, pharmacist and patient should work together and that can't happen if the most important person, the patient, is deliberately excluded and keep in the dark.
Nobody should be getting a prescription without being told what it is for and what they can expect from the treatment. The pharmacist can then provide more detailed information and instructions but many medicines have several uses, e.g some anti-depressants are also used for certain types of pain, so if the patient doesn't know what the prescription is then the pharmacist will have a difficult job helping them.
Many patients now check out what they have been prescribed on the internet before getting the prescription dispensed and while there is a lot of poor information online most come informed and are able to ask relevant questions and so get the maximum benefit.

I completely agree. But as I said above, the time for finding out about the treatment isn't reading the script after, it's during the consultation. If the patient has to resort to reading the script to know what they're taking, it's a pretty bad consultation.

echo beach

Icemancometh wrote: »

If the patient has to resort to reading the script to know what they're taking, it's a pretty bad consultation.

I agree but it happens more often than you would think, not to mention the number of people who speak to the receptionist then pick up a prescription without ever seeing the doctor.

Taco Chips

Often it doesn't matter how long a doc spends or how much effort is made at communicating. A lot of patients simply take things in one ear and out both. This is especially true for older patients who perhaps didn't have a lot of formal education growing up.

echo beach

Taco Chips wrote: »

Often it doesn't matter how long a doc spends or how much effort is made at communicating. A lot of patients simply take things in one ear and out both.

True. Some of it is due to the stress of being worried and ill, some of it is inattention. Either way some WRITTEN information can help.

This is especially true for older patients who perhaps didn't have a lot of formal education growing up.

That isn't my experience. Some older people are hard of hearing and don't admit it, or have problems understanding but generally they are no worse than younger people at listening. If anything the more 'education' a person has the more inclined they are to think they know something already so don't need to listen. It is a habit I'm guilty of myself at times.
I find an illiterate person often only has to be told something once because they have trained themselves to rely on their memory.

drzhivago

Taco Chips wrote: »

Often it doesn't matter how long a doc spends or how much effort is made at communicating. A lot of patients simply take things in one ear and out both. This is especially true for older patients who perhaps didn't have a lot of formal education growing up.

But was it not the translation that started this off

Those are notes for the doctors records not for the patient

The prescription is different but again standard shorthand

Taco Chips

drzhivago wrote: »

But was it not the translation that started this off

Those are notes for the doctors records not for the patient

The prescription is different but again standard shorthand

I agree the shorthand is standard, but I just added a disclaimer to my post because I know how anything approaching medical advice isn't appreciated on boards. Even if this wasn't medical advice, it was still a third party interpreting facts for the patient.

drzhivago

Taco Chips wrote: »

I agree the shorthand is standard, but I just added a disclaimer to my post because I know how anything approaching medical advice isn't appreciated on boards. Even if this wasn't medical advice, it was still a third party interpreting facts for the patient.

sorry not getting at you, it went from the doctors note to the prescription as an issue and I thought either before your post or just after that it happened

Nonoperational

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Let's pretend that I accept that the information should not be available for the patient to read (I don't, but it's another argument).

Surely it should be written in a way that another health professional can know with 100% certainly what was meant? Because if they say "It may or may not be what your GP meant", then the note is pretty much useless as a method of communicating between the GP and the other health professional.

Everything asked about here is indeed interpretable with 100% certainty.