Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Using common ophthalmologic jargon in correspondence can lead to miscommunication

N Ali, AA Khan, M Akunjee and F Ahfat
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (533): 968-969.
N Ali
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AA Khan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M Akunjee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F Ahfat
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The usage of abbreviations and acronyms is increasingly becoming accepted as part and parcel of the medical language.1 In recent times we have seen an almost exponential increase in the use of such shortened terms in almost every speciality of medicine,2 with the ophthalmic field being of no exception. Such abbreviations are used almost everyday by hospital clinicians in their correspondence with primary healthcare doctors.

Although acronyms are useful because they simplify and accelerate communication, specialists often take it for granted that certain trade terms are evident or self-explanatory such that they do not bother to define them.

The inappropriate use of jargon can lead to confusion and miscommunication between the ophthalmologists and the GPs; with the patient potentially suffering due to misdiagnosis or maltreatment.

In a primary healthcare survey we undertook, sending out a ‘jargon’ questionnaire to GPs based in Wales, asking each recipient to unravel 12 abbreviations to the best of their ability; we found quite surprising results.

Out of the 48 questionnaires we received, we found quite wide variance in the understanding of GPs for the meanings of 12 ophthalmologic abbreviations we presented. As few as 16.7% of GPs responded correctly to what the term, ‘PVD’ (posterior vitreous detachment) represented, with 32 of the responders offering ‘peripheral vascular disease’ as an explanation. However, 68.8% of GPs were able to correctly define what ‘Left RD repair’ meant. Startlingly, 67.8% of all the responses received were incorrectly defined or explained.

The results of our survey suggest that many of the acronyms used by ophthalmologists are often poorly understood among GPs. Such misunderstanding may create confusion both to the GP themselves and to the patient who may be presented with different diagnoses. Ophthalmologists have a duty of care to ensure that GPs are aware of the meanings of such terms used in their discharge summaries and outpatient letters.

We propose that to ensure GPs fully understand what such acronyms mean and to avert mishaps, eliminating any guesswork, one should avoid the usage of acronyms that denote common nonophthalmic conditions such as PVD. Specialist terms such as ‘pseudophakia’ should be replaced with the full procedural detail of the operation undertaken. Finally, when mentioning any acronym in such communiqués, the ophthalmologist must ensure that they are fully explained to avoid any confusion that could later be detrimental to patient health and care. Embedded Image

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Cheng TO
    (1994) Acronymophilia: the exponential growth of the use of acronyms should be resisted. BMJ 309:683–684.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Isaacs D,
    2. Fitzgerald D
    (2000) Acronymophilia: an update. Arch Dis Child 83(6):517–518.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (533)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 533
December 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Using common ophthalmologic jargon in correspondence can lead to miscommunication
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Using common ophthalmologic jargon in correspondence can lead to miscommunication
N Ali, AA Khan, M Akunjee, F Ahfat
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (533): 968-969.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Using common ophthalmologic jargon in correspondence can lead to miscommunication
N Ali, AA Khan, M Akunjee, F Ahfat
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (533): 968-969.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242