Lung sounds: How doctors draw crackles and wheeze

Gregory Scott, Edward J. Presswood, Boikanyo Makubate, Frank Cross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The content of medical records is a potential source of miscommunication between clinicians. Doctors' written entries have been criticised for their illegibility and ambiguity, but no studies have examined doctors' drawings that are commonly used for recording auscultation findings. Objective To compare doctors' drawings of auscultation findings, based on identical clinical information. Methods Doctors at the Royal London Hospital and a group of London based general practitioners (GPs) documented a respiratory examination with a drawing of the auscultation findings of bilateral mid and lower zone wheeze and right lower zone crackles. The graphical properties of each drawing were examined and the use of written captions and labels recorded. Drawings were classified into styles according to the use of symbols (defined as discrete characters or icons) and shading (cross-hatching, speckling or darkening) to depict the auscultation findings. The study was conducted between September and November 2011. Results Sixty-nine hospital doctors and 13 GPs participated. Ten drawing styles were identified from 78 completed drawings. Ten distinct symbols and a range of shading techniques were used. The most frequent style (21% of drawings) combined 'X' symbols representing crackles with musical notes for wheeze. There was inconsistency of representation across the drawings. Forty-seven (60%) drawings used an 'X' symbol exclusively to represent crackles, but six (8%) used 'X' only to represent wheeze, and 10 (13%) used 'X' to represent both findings. 91% of participants included captions or labels with their drawing. Conclusions There was wide variation in doctors' drawings of identical auscultation findings, and inconsistency in the meaning of symbols both between and within drawings. Doctors risk incorrectly interpreting each other's drawings when they are not effectively labelled. We recommend doctors consider using a written description instead, or draw different findings with distinct symbols or shading, labelling all findings clearly.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)693-697
Number of pages5
JournalPostgraduate Medical Journal
Volume89
Issue number1058
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2013

Fingerprint

Auscultation
Respiratory Sounds
General Practitioners
Medical Records

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Scott, Gregory ; Presswood, Edward J. ; Makubate, Boikanyo ; Cross, Frank. / Lung sounds : How doctors draw crackles and wheeze. In: Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2013 ; Vol. 89, No. 1058. pp. 693-697.
@article{f62e166416ba414493e8ec330746c0cf,
title = "Lung sounds: How doctors draw crackles and wheeze",
abstract = "Background The content of medical records is a potential source of miscommunication between clinicians. Doctors' written entries have been criticised for their illegibility and ambiguity, but no studies have examined doctors' drawings that are commonly used for recording auscultation findings. Objective To compare doctors' drawings of auscultation findings, based on identical clinical information. Methods Doctors at the Royal London Hospital and a group of London based general practitioners (GPs) documented a respiratory examination with a drawing of the auscultation findings of bilateral mid and lower zone wheeze and right lower zone crackles. The graphical properties of each drawing were examined and the use of written captions and labels recorded. Drawings were classified into styles according to the use of symbols (defined as discrete characters or icons) and shading (cross-hatching, speckling or darkening) to depict the auscultation findings. The study was conducted between September and November 2011. Results Sixty-nine hospital doctors and 13 GPs participated. Ten drawing styles were identified from 78 completed drawings. Ten distinct symbols and a range of shading techniques were used. The most frequent style (21{\%} of drawings) combined 'X' symbols representing crackles with musical notes for wheeze. There was inconsistency of representation across the drawings. Forty-seven (60{\%}) drawings used an 'X' symbol exclusively to represent crackles, but six (8{\%}) used 'X' only to represent wheeze, and 10 (13{\%}) used 'X' to represent both findings. 91{\%} of participants included captions or labels with their drawing. Conclusions There was wide variation in doctors' drawings of identical auscultation findings, and inconsistency in the meaning of symbols both between and within drawings. Doctors risk incorrectly interpreting each other's drawings when they are not effectively labelled. We recommend doctors consider using a written description instead, or draw different findings with distinct symbols or shading, labelling all findings clearly.",
author = "Gregory Scott and Presswood, {Edward J.} and Boikanyo Makubate and Frank Cross",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131410",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "693--697",
journal = "Postgraduate Medical Journal",
issn = "0032-5473",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1058",

}

Lung sounds : How doctors draw crackles and wheeze. / Scott, Gregory; Presswood, Edward J.; Makubate, Boikanyo; Cross, Frank.

In: Postgraduate Medical Journal, Vol. 89, No. 1058, 01.12.2013, p. 693-697.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lung sounds

T2 - How doctors draw crackles and wheeze

AU - Scott, Gregory

AU - Presswood, Edward J.

AU - Makubate, Boikanyo

AU - Cross, Frank

PY - 2013/12/1

Y1 - 2013/12/1

N2 - Background The content of medical records is a potential source of miscommunication between clinicians. Doctors' written entries have been criticised for their illegibility and ambiguity, but no studies have examined doctors' drawings that are commonly used for recording auscultation findings. Objective To compare doctors' drawings of auscultation findings, based on identical clinical information. Methods Doctors at the Royal London Hospital and a group of London based general practitioners (GPs) documented a respiratory examination with a drawing of the auscultation findings of bilateral mid and lower zone wheeze and right lower zone crackles. The graphical properties of each drawing were examined and the use of written captions and labels recorded. Drawings were classified into styles according to the use of symbols (defined as discrete characters or icons) and shading (cross-hatching, speckling or darkening) to depict the auscultation findings. The study was conducted between September and November 2011. Results Sixty-nine hospital doctors and 13 GPs participated. Ten drawing styles were identified from 78 completed drawings. Ten distinct symbols and a range of shading techniques were used. The most frequent style (21% of drawings) combined 'X' symbols representing crackles with musical notes for wheeze. There was inconsistency of representation across the drawings. Forty-seven (60%) drawings used an 'X' symbol exclusively to represent crackles, but six (8%) used 'X' only to represent wheeze, and 10 (13%) used 'X' to represent both findings. 91% of participants included captions or labels with their drawing. Conclusions There was wide variation in doctors' drawings of identical auscultation findings, and inconsistency in the meaning of symbols both between and within drawings. Doctors risk incorrectly interpreting each other's drawings when they are not effectively labelled. We recommend doctors consider using a written description instead, or draw different findings with distinct symbols or shading, labelling all findings clearly.

AB - Background The content of medical records is a potential source of miscommunication between clinicians. Doctors' written entries have been criticised for their illegibility and ambiguity, but no studies have examined doctors' drawings that are commonly used for recording auscultation findings. Objective To compare doctors' drawings of auscultation findings, based on identical clinical information. Methods Doctors at the Royal London Hospital and a group of London based general practitioners (GPs) documented a respiratory examination with a drawing of the auscultation findings of bilateral mid and lower zone wheeze and right lower zone crackles. The graphical properties of each drawing were examined and the use of written captions and labels recorded. Drawings were classified into styles according to the use of symbols (defined as discrete characters or icons) and shading (cross-hatching, speckling or darkening) to depict the auscultation findings. The study was conducted between September and November 2011. Results Sixty-nine hospital doctors and 13 GPs participated. Ten drawing styles were identified from 78 completed drawings. Ten distinct symbols and a range of shading techniques were used. The most frequent style (21% of drawings) combined 'X' symbols representing crackles with musical notes for wheeze. There was inconsistency of representation across the drawings. Forty-seven (60%) drawings used an 'X' symbol exclusively to represent crackles, but six (8%) used 'X' only to represent wheeze, and 10 (13%) used 'X' to represent both findings. 91% of participants included captions or labels with their drawing. Conclusions There was wide variation in doctors' drawings of identical auscultation findings, and inconsistency in the meaning of symbols both between and within drawings. Doctors risk incorrectly interpreting each other's drawings when they are not effectively labelled. We recommend doctors consider using a written description instead, or draw different findings with distinct symbols or shading, labelling all findings clearly.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887827305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887827305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131410

DO - 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131410

M3 - Article

C2 - 23912268

AN - SCOPUS:84887827305

VL - 89

SP - 693

EP - 697

JO - Postgraduate Medical Journal

JF - Postgraduate Medical Journal

SN - 0032-5473

IS - 1058

ER -