Dr. Larry Weed discussing the problem-oriented medical record and clinical decision-making. He covers SOAP, medical thinking, and medical education. visualdx.com
He speaks so elegant and so clear, so if you don't understand...go back and start again. I am retired now but I know doctors who did what he talks about and some who did as he wants. He is right, and in this era of multiple doctors working as a team, it must be very precise and complete.
It's very tempting to play Sherlock Holmes with incomplete information. This lecture is wonderful. It's a great reminder to not be arrogant and consider that one doesn't need a systematic approach because one's "intuition" is superior!
This is about problem solving and scientific rigor. Today's computers have moved us back toward source orientation. The path of the patient's problems are completely obscured by the modern computers' focus on money and practitioners' focus on the immediate coding challenges.
I have just re looked at this video and his paper from 2009, he was before his time and 50 years on, the penny might just have dropped with the rest of us.- Interview with Lawrence Weed, MD- The Father of the Problem-Oriented Medical Record Looks Ahead. ...wish I'd seen this as a student nurse 40 years ago
This should be seen by all medical students and working doctors.....This is the basis of our electronic patient record........we are doing nothing new!
I painstakingly edited the entire transcript to improve accessibility for anyone who needs it (hearing loss, non-native English speakers). Anyone know how I can upload my transcript to update the subtitles on this video or perhaps duplicate this video and insert the improved subtitles? Thanks in advance
Hmm, lay people imagine that all problems in their patient history are pertinent. They are not. Shoulder pain and bursitis in 1989, and lap choli in 2008, and her appy and tonsillectomy in 1948, have nothing to do with her hospitalization for cerebral hemorrhage today. We live burdened by nonsensical entries into medical records that self populate with every electronic note. His quality issues are germane, but the idea that computers have improved anything is a joke. An interesting period piece that shows nothing ever changes.
that's so arrogant. the patient's experience of illness is more important than the practitioner's conception of disease. If you can't handle dealing with a whole person then you shouldn't be involved in their disease or health.
Yes I agree with u, BUT u urself mentioned that it is the lay man that presents all of his past and current problems as pertinent. Isn't it our job as professionals to hear out, arrange and sort out the patients brainstorm? May be the problems u posted are not linked to each other but who knows the data that u collected by hearing out the patient today might be used in a research tomorrow that connects all the previous conditions as a syndrome of some sort . The oncologists might use the data from the patient u mentioned, and weigh each condition's contribution to the development of cancer or something in later life of something like that. They need collosal data and a super computer to weigh out and correlate the factors. I believe we are running out of basic fundamental research ideas. The new papers are all about efficacy, validity and improvisation from other sciences. these papers need preicious surgical conditions and techniques related to a present illness. This means computers are the only one who can maintain and pass these data to our later generations. Too long didn't read: try to actually use all the data retched by the patient or atleast care enough to document it as a gesture of professional etiquette to the later generations. (And we need computers to save us from drowning in data)
@@sheikmohamedamanulaa3898 In some kind of ideal world you might be correct, but I don't practice there, nor do you, and we never will. And since feelings are in vogue with Cocoa , I , and most honest physicians become nauseated when the patient with diverticulitis says, " Well doc, let me tell you about that scar...twenty two years ago, yep, maybe 25; Doc Roster operated on my shoulder; is that in my record...? "
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Weed was Centuries before his time. This lecture is still incredibly relevant in today's healthcare environment.
Incredible man!
He speaks so elegant and so clear, so if you don't understand...go back and start again. I am retired now but I know doctors who did what he talks about and some who did as he wants. He is right, and in this era of multiple doctors working as a team, it must be very precise and complete.
This much be one of the first and required lectures to watch for any clinical or health informatics student!
Bad-ass dude, before him I had never seen a doctor that could dance with philosophy and even politics while talking about medicine. Incredible stuff.
I read his articles as a medical student in 1973 and saved a copy for decades. Landmark concepts still viable today. Father of POMR and SOAP notes.
It's very tempting to play Sherlock Holmes with incomplete information. This lecture is wonderful. It's a great reminder to not be arrogant and consider that one doesn't need a systematic approach because one's "intuition" is superior!
I'm blown away .....such a long time ago but still relevant
One of the best lectures I have heard in a long time
Dr.Weed , your vision is legendary
This has changed my perspective. My patient records will be better put together and I'm already feeling improvements.
This is about problem solving and scientific rigor. Today's computers have moved us back toward source orientation. The path of the patient's problems are completely obscured by the modern computers' focus on money and practitioners' focus on the immediate coding challenges.
Brilliant man, brilliant lecture. Anyone working on AI in medicine and concerned about patient safety should watch this.
great lecture about what the essence of medicine is...
amazing just how relevant this still is today.
I have just re looked at this video and his paper from 2009, he was before his time and 50 years on, the penny might just have dropped with the rest of us.- Interview with Lawrence Weed, MD- The Father of the Problem-Oriented Medical Record Looks Ahead. ...wish I'd seen this as a student nurse 40 years ago
2 generations ahead of his time.
Glad to see we've come so far in 41 years!
Have we?
Great lecture. Should be given at all grand rounds today.
This should be seen by all medical students and working doctors.....This is the basis of our electronic patient record........we are doing nothing new!
Dr. Larry Weed had a lot to offer modern medicine, as this video shows.
Just cited this on my blog this morning (10/06/14). Lawrence Weed was way ahead of his time. Blog.KHIT.org
legend
Every sentence of his could be a quote
I painstakingly edited the entire transcript to improve accessibility for anyone who needs it (hearing loss, non-native English speakers). Anyone know how I can upload my transcript to update the subtitles on this video or perhaps duplicate this video and insert the improved subtitles? Thanks in advance
Thanks to VisualDx for updating the subtitles!
Awesome.
Incredible. 🤓
Is this content copyrighted? We are thinking about using this as a part of our internal campaign for use of an interdisciplinary problem list.
Ad Astra Larry.
And wait till he try to diagnose the patient base on ELECTRONIC medical record🤔
Hmm, lay people imagine that all problems in their patient history are pertinent. They are not. Shoulder pain and bursitis in 1989, and lap choli in 2008, and her appy and tonsillectomy in 1948, have nothing to do with her hospitalization for cerebral hemorrhage today. We live burdened by nonsensical entries into medical records that self populate with every electronic note. His quality issues are germane, but the idea that computers have improved anything is a joke. An interesting period piece that shows nothing ever changes.
that's so arrogant. the patient's experience of illness is more important than the practitioner's conception of disease.
If you can't handle dealing with a whole person then you shouldn't be involved in their disease or health.
@@CocoaHerBeansness that’s so your opinion and feeling.
@@davidmbeckmann true, is that an argument against my opinion?
Yes I agree with u, BUT u urself mentioned that it is the lay man that presents all of his past and current problems as pertinent. Isn't it our job as professionals to hear out, arrange and sort out the patients brainstorm? May be the problems u posted are not linked to each other but who knows the data that u collected by hearing out the patient today might be used in a research tomorrow that connects all the previous conditions as a syndrome of some sort . The oncologists might use the data from the patient u mentioned, and weigh each condition's contribution to the development of cancer or something in later life of something like that. They need collosal data and a super computer to weigh out and correlate the factors.
I believe we are running out of basic fundamental research ideas. The new papers are all about efficacy, validity and improvisation from other sciences. these papers need preicious surgical conditions and techniques related to a present illness. This means computers are the only one who can maintain and pass these data to our later generations.
Too long didn't read: try to actually use all the data retched by the patient or atleast care enough to document it as a gesture of professional etiquette to the later generations. (And we need computers to save us from drowning in data)
@@sheikmohamedamanulaa3898 In some kind of ideal world you might be correct, but I don't practice there, nor do you, and we never will. And since feelings are in vogue with Cocoa , I , and most honest physicians become nauseated when the patient with diverticulitis says, " Well doc, let me tell you about that scar...twenty two years ago, yep, maybe 25; Doc Roster operated on my shoulder; is that in my record...? "