The patient was scheduled to undergo a laparoscopy. I was going through the reports of various tests she had undergone.
"Essentially normal" said the report of the chest radiograph.
I knew what 'normal' was. The adjective 'essentially' was not essential. But it was found on 90% of the reports coming from that department. There was a pelvic ultrasonography report. It read 'essentially normal.' Both reporting doctors were from the same department. Probably they told them to write like that when they were inducted. Perhaps they learned that watching their seniors. Perhaps they thought that additional word gave them protection from litigation, as 'normal' was so absolute, while 'essentially normal' implied that something could be abnormal, though most of the components were normal.
Then there was the anesthesia fitness report. After filling in all clinical details and reports of various investigations, the anesthesiologist had written 'fit for anesthesia with due risk'. That was also routine. Once I had asked them "how much risk is due in this case?"
They had been unable to clarify.
"There are grades of risk" I said. "What is the grade in this given case?"
"She is OK."
"Then why not just say she is fit? If she had a severe mitral stenosis, the 'due' risk would be much more than when she is totally normal."
"Yes."
despite my logical argument, they have not changed their practice. Either it sounds grand and so they persist, or they are scared of committing outright that all is OK.
"Essentially normal" said the report of the chest radiograph.
I knew what 'normal' was. The adjective 'essentially' was not essential. But it was found on 90% of the reports coming from that department. There was a pelvic ultrasonography report. It read 'essentially normal.' Both reporting doctors were from the same department. Probably they told them to write like that when they were inducted. Perhaps they learned that watching their seniors. Perhaps they thought that additional word gave them protection from litigation, as 'normal' was so absolute, while 'essentially normal' implied that something could be abnormal, though most of the components were normal.
Then there was the anesthesia fitness report. After filling in all clinical details and reports of various investigations, the anesthesiologist had written 'fit for anesthesia with due risk'. That was also routine. Once I had asked them "how much risk is due in this case?"
They had been unable to clarify.
"There are grades of risk" I said. "What is the grade in this given case?"
"She is OK."
"Then why not just say she is fit? If she had a severe mitral stenosis, the 'due' risk would be much more than when she is totally normal."
"Yes."
despite my logical argument, they have not changed their practice. Either it sounds grand and so they persist, or they are scared of committing outright that all is OK.
