re: A Question of Style

Kenny West — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:47:18 GMT

Without picking apart minor mistakes in this article, like AAMT/AHDI or whatever they call themselves these days, I agree with the spirit expressed above. If MTs are merely robots who transcribe whatever they hear without correcting grammar, sentence structure, stupid neoglisms, etc., where does that leave our profession? Very vulnerable to the next wave of VR. With the nearly 1/3 reduction in pay scale, outsourcing, VR, and now this new set of craniorectally inverted rules, the mass exodus away from the MT field is sure to continue and accellerate. Too bad - used to be a great job.

re: A Question of Style

Laura — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:13:05 GMT

JCAHO no longer goes by this acronym or their former name. They now are called the Joint Commission.

AAMT no longer goes by this acronym. The organization changed its name 3 years ago to the Association for Healthcare Documentation Integrity (AHDI).

The Book of Style is NOT a capricious collection of style rules “concocted” by the association and changed randomly for the purpose of generating revenue! This misperception has been tossed out for years and it is simply time that MTs stopped this nonsense! The BOS is a compilation of standards and styles that have been culled from a variety of respected resources such as the The Chicago Manual of Style as well as the Manual of Style published by the American Medical Association. Style rules are also collected from various professional and scientific organizations such as the American Diabetes Association and other respected organizations that publish recommendations for communicating clearly and concisely.

The volunteers and the staff of AHDI do not determine style—they simply cull the industry resources and publish the style rules as a convenience to MTs. Rather than bilking MTs of their hard-earned funds, the association is actually saving MTs time and money by compiling needed information into a single resource, eliminating the need to own a MOS, CMOS, and other resources that cost far more than the AHDI BOS. The BOS should be embraced by MTs and promoted to their employers and providers as a way to end the “Burger King” syndrome (have it your way) that haunts this profession and causes countless hours of confusion and frustration for MTs who must follow a plethora of contradicting style rules for each provider/facility. How much more productive could we be if we could set our style rules in our text expanders and use the same rules for ALL DOCUMENTS?

Style is about CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS COMMUNICATION and when it comes to communicating scientific and healthcare-related information, style rules should not vary from one facility to another. What if each chemical laboratory had their own way of expressing a chemical equation or a chemical reaction? How would this serve the scientific community? What if the petroleum industry decided there were 14 ways to express the quality or properties of their gasoline? How would this serve the industry or the consumer?

The Do Not Use abbreviation list was compiled by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices after extensive studies on medication errors. Clearly, everyone knows that cc in typewritten form would not be confused with U, but the point is to remove all references from the record and to encourage a shift in thinking. If NO records (handwritten, typed, computer displayed) included these abbreviations, it would eliminate the double-standard of using various abbreviations for various means of communication.

As to your point of using “new words,” the reality is that we use new words every single day. English is a dynamic language. Do you hear anyone speaking in the style of the late 19th century? No, because our language is constantly evolving. There are numerous terms that are an accepted part of medical language because they have been used to the point of recognition. If everyone understands what “googling” means, why remove the word from the language? Common usage drives language; otherwise, we would all still be speaking the language of our ancestors.

As to the comment on mixing Latin and English, I’m not aware of any publications, style guides, or associations that are promoting the use of “q. day.”