HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2007.128132v1 adc.2007.128132v2 93/3/204    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sheppard, J E Articles by Williams, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sheppard, J E Articles by Williams, J Topic Collections Editor's choice Related Article

Ambiguous abbreviations: an audit of abbreviations in paediatric note keeping

¹ Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham, UK
² Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK

Correspondence to:
Simon Fountain-Polley, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK; pollgysim{at}yahoo.com

Objective: To assess the frequency, nature and understanding of abbreviations in medical records.

Design: Audit of abbreviation use and meaning in paediatric handover sheets and medical notes compared to two standards, the Trust Intranet Medical Dictionary (TID) and Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (MMD). A selection of abbreviations was shown to healthcare professionals to examine interpretation of abbreviations.

Setting: Large inner-city district general hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Main outcome measures: Frequency, nature and understanding of abbreviations in paediatric medical records.

Results: On 25 handover sheets a total of 2286 abbreviations were used, with 221 different abbreviations; the standards recognised 14% (TID) and 20% (MMD) of these abbreviations. In 168 sets of medical notes a total of 3668 abbreviations were used, with 479 different abbreviations; the standards recognised 15% (TID) and 17% (MMD). Some words were shortened in different forms, for example, normal (N, Nl, NAD) and some abbreviations had multiple interpretations that differed from those intended, for example, TOF (tetralogy of Fallot, tracheo-oesophageal fistula). When presented with a selection of abbreviations, paediatric doctors recognized 56–94% and other healthcare professionals recognised 31–63%.

Conclusion: Abbreviation use was widespread in paediatric note keeping. There was no systematic approach to this and difficulties in interpretation were demonstrated. The use of standardised abbreviations to avoid confusion is suggested.