↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Communication pitfalls of traditional history and physical write-up documentation

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Communication pitfalls of traditional history and physical write-up documentation
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/amep.s120525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey L Brown

Abstract

An unofficial standardized "write-up" outline is commonly used for documenting history and physical examinations, giving oral presentations, and teaching clinical skills. Despite general acceptance, there is an apparent discrepancy between the way clinical encounters are conducted and how they are documented. Fifteen medical school websites were randomly selected from search-engine generated lists. One example of a history and physical write-up from each of six sites, one teaching outline from each of nine additional sites, and recommendations for documentation made in two commonly used textbooks were compared for similarities and differences. Except for minor variations in documenting background information, all sampled materials utilized the same standardized format. When the examiners' early perceptions of the patients' degree of illness or level of distress were described, they were categorized as "general appearance" within the physical findings. Contrary to clinical practice, none of the examples or recommendations documented these early perceptions before chief concerns and history were presented. An examiner's initial perceptions of a patient's affect, degree of illness, and level of distress can influence the content of the history, triage decisions, and prioritization of likely diagnoses. When chief concerns and history are shared without benefit of this information, erroneous assumptions and miscommunications can result. This survey confirms common use of a standardized outline for documenting, communicating, and teaching history-taking and physical examination protocol. The present outline shares early observations out of clinical sequence and may provide inadequate context for accurate interpretation of chief concerns and history. Corrective actions include modifying the documentation sequence to conform to clinical practice and teaching contextual methodology for sharing patient information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 30%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,127,525
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#172
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,778
of 419,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.