This research summary presents two papers on testing students´ knowledge of abbreviations and assessing their perception of using the abbreviations in clinical practice. The research conducted in Malaysia (2015) was confirmed by the latter one performed in Nepal (2020). In both studies, the students were supposed to provide the meaning of standard and non-standard abbreviations and complete the questionnaire. The lists of selected abbreviations differed in their number and meaning.
Aim & Participants: The study explored how early medical students acquired the practice of using abbreviations and their ability to interpret commonly used abbreviations in medical practice. The researchers chose 80 junior (1st year) and 74 senior (final year) medical students.
Material & Methods: A list of standard abbreviations (23 items) and non-standard (30 items) abbreviations selected in a pilot study was a part of a cross-sectional questionnaire. The other sections focused on obtaining demographic data, frequency of abbreviation usage, the reasons for using, and impact of their use on the quality of patient care. Students´ attitude towards abbreviations was evaluated by the Likert scale.
Results of a test: Both groups of students correctly interpreted standard abbreviations such as BP (blood pressure), BPH (benign prostate hyperplasia), NBM (nil by mouth), PR (pulse rate), SOB (shortness of breath), TRO (to rule out), U/S (ultrasound) and O/E (on examination). On the contrary, they had difficulties with abbreviations that are used less frequently or have ambiguous meaning, e. g. DIL (death-in-line), ICD (intra-cardiac defibrillator), STI (soft tissue injury vs sexually transmitted disease), Tx (transfusion vs. treatment), MCL (mid-clavicular line vs. medial collateral ligament), N/A (not applicable vs. no abnormalities), W/out (watch out vs. without).
Students´ perception: More junior students believe that abbreviations save space, their use is convenient and writing full sentences is tedious. In terms of impact of the abbreviations on patient healthcare, the senior students reported delay in administering therapy, procedure, and diagnosis as well as a risk of wrong therapy given, wrong procedure done, or wrong diagnosis made more often than the junior ones.
Conclusion: According to the students, the advantages of using abbreviations include saving time, space and avoiding writing full sentences. When junior students experienced difficulties interpreting the meaning, they felt more frustrated than senior students. The strategy used to deal with the unknown abbreviation was based on guessing its meaning. Most of the students in both groups acquired their knowledge when they encountered the clinical notes of doctors. The authors recommend teaching only approved standardised abbreviations.
Aim & Participants: The aim of the study was to assess the perception and knowledge of abbreviations by medical students in clinical years. In total, 97 students participated.
Material & Methods: A list of 40 abbreviations compiled in the pilot study was part of a cross-sectional questionnaire. The other parts were the same as in the research above. Similarly, students´ perception was assessed by the Likert scale.
Results of a test: The students correctly interpreted the standard abbreviations such as BP (blood pressure), JVP (jugular venous pressure), NS (normal saline), OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test). However, they have difficulties with abbreviations that have more meanings, e. g., STI (soft tissue injury vs. sexually transmitted infection), CS (culture sensitivity vs. Caesarian section), and TC (total count vs. take care).
Students´ perception: The junior and senior students confirmed that the use of abbreviations causes problems in terms of delay in providing heathcare and their quality. Both groups of students agree that the use of abbreviations saves time and space. They find writing full sentences tedious. On the other hand, the use of abbreviations is considered inconvenient due to their ambiguity. Interestingly, the senior students reported more difficulties in interpreting the abbreviations, which resulted in frustrations. To find the correct meaning, they applied a guessing strategy.
Conclusion: The senior students better interpreted both standard and non-standard abbreviations. Most students acquired abbreviations from the medical officer´s note. Both groups of students find abbreviations necessary and acceptable because they save time. However, hospitals or concerned departments should regulate the use of standard abbreviations.