Doc, I am a little worried about my MCHC,” was how my patient started his office visit. As I am a trained professional I took this in calmly and answered, “What?”
“Remember, I was tired so you sent me for some blood work. I signed up to receive my lab results online, and my MCHC is supposed to be 315 to 365 but mine was 314. So am I okay?”
Stalling for time, I brought up his results and sure enough under the hematology panel, outlined in red, was the offending result. I am pretty sure I learned in medical school what MCHC stands for but all that popped into my head was something to do with MC Hammer. Fortunately, excellent medical advice is at my fingertips in the form of that well-respected resource, Google. “Well, Bob, sometimes a low MCHC, or mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, can be a sign of a serious problem, but yours is just barely outside the normal range, so fortunately I have saved your life again.”
It is difficult to explain normal test result confidence intervals to patients—particularly when I don’t understand them myself. Telling patients that 95% of people fall in those normal ranges 95% of the time makes their eyes gloss over and causes me to relive the dull headache that accompanied each of my undergraduate statistics lectures.
The above scenario is going to become more commonplace as our patients increase their online medical access. I have already had a number of office visits generated by anxious patients regarding essentially normal test results. It takes a fair bit of calm explanation to allay their fears and give them perspective. I wonder, moving forward, as patients begin to access other results such as diagnostic imaging, if these visits will become the norm. Will I find myself answering questions about biliary duct diameters, renal cysts, colonic stool content, and fatty livers?
The health authority in which I toil is adopting a new program called myHEALTHPlan through which patients can access part of their medical records online. I believe the theory is that if patients have this access they will be more engaged in their health management and more likely to make good health and lifestyle choices. Initially patients will have limited access and won’t be able to read the physician’s notes, but what if this changes? Before long I might find myself arguing with a patient over the details of their history. For example, why didn’t I mention that their increased gas has a hint of vanilla? My physical findings might also come into dispute—why did I label them obese when they are just big boned, or why did I write that the pain is 3 cm to the left of the umbilicus when they measured 4? Before long I might even have to justify my differential diagnosis. Can you really rule out terminal insomnia or spontaneous human combustion?
Clinical interaction with our patients is changing as technology advances, and what form the office visit will take in 10 or 20 years is anyone’s guess. I just remain thankful that so far no one has asked me why their eosinophil count is low—or what an eosinophil actually does.
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org