> Nurse takes your history with a bunch of redundant questions they already have the answers to
If you’re a nurse and your job is to take histories, it’s better to take the history in the same way every time, systematically. This minimizes the chance of making mistakes.
Moreover the notes may be wrong, or you may give a different answer this time around. You might give an important detail this time around that you didn’t give the last several times, which actually turns out to be consequential.
It might seem like a waste of your time but it’s really not. Measure twice cut once.
If I had a dollar for every time I as a paramedic had a patient tell me "no allergies" and then list off a bunch when we get to the hospital, or "I only have high blood pressure, I'm pretty healthy", and hands over a box of half a dozen or more prescriptions, or their spouse says "Well, he did have a stroke and a bypass last year"...
Seems like a very weird hill for you to die on, considering the provider's desire to ensure they have an accurate history for you to be a "problem".
How in any sense of the word is it "dismissive" to re-verify history, medications, and allergies?
Who said anything about dismissing or doubting a history or complaint? "So, just to review, your medical history includes X, Y and Z?" or "Says here, you take A, B and C, is this correct?"
That's not dismissive, but important, especially if I'm going to be administering potent cardiac or other medications to you via IV, that could have serious complications.
The main problem is when you take your medical history and current medications on a tablet on intake and then ask the same questions once you get in the room.
I understand that you are of sound mind and likely above average intelligence and likely interested and capable of providing accurate and factual statements but… most people they see are not.
People get their medications wrong just as likely as they get it correctly. This is in addition to many people being on complicated medication as regimens and/or just mostly disinterested in change.
The questions are one thing, the reviewing with a person who make above assessments is still, for now at least, a human job.
If you can’t deal with a one-character typo in a comment, then ChatGPT certainly has you beat. The bot paranoia is the icing on the cake.
Calling this an “internal process” that’s none of your concern, a much more egregious wilful misrepresentation of this situation. There is a situation or phenomenon of human behaviour, this is how the healthcare system deals with it.
Who are you as presumably some software person to come in telling them to knock the gate down without understanding why it was put there in the first place? God knows you’d hate it if someone did that to you in your area of expertise. I understand that the proliferation of VC-backed money-losing companies which parachute clueless software people into other domains have given developers an undue sense of transferable expertise, but perhaps exercise some self-awareness.
> If you’re a nurse and your job is to take histories, it’s better to take the history in the same way every time, systematically. This minimizes the chance of making mistakes.
Citation needed. For example, patient may get bored and only answer the first few questions accurately each time.
Like I explained more fully above, you’re likely pretty smart and of sound mind. A lot of people aren’t and/or the system should have safeties to catch people who are slipping.
Screw with the answers if you want but don’t pretend you are sticking it them or some kind of agent of change blazing the path of defiance.
If you’re a nurse and your job is to take histories, it’s better to take the history in the same way every time, systematically. This minimizes the chance of making mistakes.
Moreover the notes may be wrong, or you may give a different answer this time around. You might give an important detail this time around that you didn’t give the last several times, which actually turns out to be consequential.
It might seem like a waste of your time but it’s really not. Measure twice cut once.