Patient Assessment and History Taking

Author(s):  
Christopher C.K. Ho
Author(s):  
Donald W. Winnicott

A touching vignette written by Winnicott while a student at St Bart’s, on the importance of history taking and meeting each patient as a human in patient assessment.


1973 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 27-31
Author(s):  
HA Brody ◽  
LF Lucaccini ◽  
M Kamp ◽  
R Rozen

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 108-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. W. Gill ◽  
D. J. Leaper ◽  
P. J. Guillou ◽  
J. R. Staniland ◽  
J. C. Horhocks ◽  
...  

This report describes an evaluation of »observer variation« in history taking and examination of patients with abdominal pain. After an initial survey in which the degree of observer variation amongst the present authors fully confirmed previous rather gloomy forecasts, a system of »agreed definitions« was produced, and further studies showed a rapid and considerable fall in the degree of observer variation between the data recorded by the same authors. Finally, experience with a computer-based diagnostic system using the same system of agreed definitions showed the maximum diagnostic error rate due to faulty acquisition of data to be low (4.7°/o in a series of 552 cases). It is suggested as a result of these studies that — at least in respect of abdominal pain — errors in data acquisition by the clinician need not be the prime cause of faulty diagnoses.


1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (04) ◽  
pp. 222-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Quaak ◽  
R. F. Westerman ◽  
J. A. Schouten ◽  
A. Hasman ◽  
J. H. Bemmel

SummaryComputerized medical history taking, in which patients answer questions by using a terminal, is compared with the written medical record for a group of 99 patients in internal medicine. Patient complaints were analysed with respect to their frequency of occurrence for all important tracts, such as the respiratory, the gastro-intestinal and the uro-genital tracts. About 36% of over 3,200 patient answers were identical in the patient record and the written record, but a considerable percentage of complaints (56%), that were present in the patient record, were missing in the written record; the reverse was true for 4.5%. A computerized patient record appears to contain more extensive information about patient complaints, still to be interpreted by the experienced physician.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document