Case submission protocol idea
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:26 am
Greetings Jeremy and readers of your letter on submission of cases;
Hope you are well.
Have a suggestion for a possible requirement for submission of cured cases (in general, not just recently proved remedies). That is that cured symptoms from each case be repertorized by the submitter (and provided in same order as the narrative, listed under the remedy name; (possibly) with reference to the text via number (subscript superscript or in parentheses) at the point where the symptom had been deemed "cured". This list of remedies and rubrics (with "new" rubrics and subrubrics as needed) would appear in a standard location at the end (or beginning) of each case.
This would allow easier translation of cured symptoms into repertory additions as an ongoing process, subject to a committee or repertory author's judgement. I think institution of such a requirement in submission of ALL cases in published/formally submitted form will encourage more rapid development of the repertories; and make the task of evaluating possible additions or upgrades far easier for committees and authors, because the case submitter has already identified the rubrics, (with remedy already present, added, upgraded) or where a new rubric must be considered.
Also, when cured cases are included in the databases of search-engine type homeopathic software tools, a cured symptoms rubric list at the end (or beginning) of every case could be a quick-check and summary of the "gist" of that case. This would speed up research to identify which case/remedy needs to be read in detail to obtain the relevant information during research on a case.. The case submitter would also grade the intensity of the symptom, helping the process of upgrading. And this concept of a standard rubric block at the end of each case could be extended to include a
standard set of info about the case (date, place, prescriber, sex, age, new to homeopathy or not, medical diagnostics with references available and source; followup duration in months, number of remedies used during period and their names, and whether "acute" or "intercurrent" (as well as can be judged); Whether pt still in contact at date of submission, etc. Having a standardized block of info is a way to speed up information compilation, although this should not be done at the expense of evaluation and quality control.
As well, the body of the case submission could also have some standardization, including guidelines as you have provided in your letter (reproduced below in this message for reference by others reading this).
A drawback of institution of any extended protocol here is that the process of writing up cases, already not popular and quite time-consuming, might become even less common. Care would have to be exercised in design of the standard protocol to keep this in mind and not ask for unnecessary information, and allow provision for "information not available" to a certain degree. The protocol should be as "practitioner friendly" as possible. The fact that the data collection mechanism would be better organized to actually receive and assimilate data so additions occur more quickly
would, I expect, encourage submission of case writeups. This latter effect would probably override the effect of "protocol angst."
I think this idea, or a variant on it , is particularly important to carefully consider at this point in time, when (I understand) there are projects in process to gather cases in digital text form en masse on an ongoing basis. These projects portend huge potential in improvement of our repertories, which are so much more complete than before, but still lacking (partly) because of the need for confirmation of cured symptoms. Getting started on "the right foot" with an appropriate protocol for submission as per the above idea will save immeasureably the time spent
evaluating case information. At least an initial try at repertorization (of only clearly cured symptoms) should be done and graded by the person who takes the case and is thus most familiar with it, whether (or not) the rubric selection and grading is perfectly accurate in the context of the repertory as a whole. This puts most of the evaluation of this kind in the hands of the multitude of prescribers whom will submit, saving analysis later by people or committees looking at the case for the first time. The committee or author has the option of contacting the submitter at a
later time in any case for further information to confirm the information. Setting up this requirement will also get practitioners in the mindset of recording more cured symptoms (even peripheral ones) in cases, creating a finer net for data.
I would suggest collaboration with others involved in collection of cured cases (Kent Associates folks?, Radar/Archibel folks?, Repertory authors, organizations, etc) in the formulation of a protocol which will work for everybody, whom can then possibly standardize their digital platforms, where used, for receipt and collation of this information.
Alright, there's the idea (which I expect you have thought of before); I hope you will consider implementation of something like this, since you are, Jeremy, a great cross-pollinator and organizer in our profession.
Peace in the Worlds,
Andy H.
Finrod wrote:
Hope you are well.
Have a suggestion for a possible requirement for submission of cured cases (in general, not just recently proved remedies). That is that cured symptoms from each case be repertorized by the submitter (and provided in same order as the narrative, listed under the remedy name; (possibly) with reference to the text via number (subscript superscript or in parentheses) at the point where the symptom had been deemed "cured". This list of remedies and rubrics (with "new" rubrics and subrubrics as needed) would appear in a standard location at the end (or beginning) of each case.
This would allow easier translation of cured symptoms into repertory additions as an ongoing process, subject to a committee or repertory author's judgement. I think institution of such a requirement in submission of ALL cases in published/formally submitted form will encourage more rapid development of the repertories; and make the task of evaluating possible additions or upgrades far easier for committees and authors, because the case submitter has already identified the rubrics, (with remedy already present, added, upgraded) or where a new rubric must be considered.
Also, when cured cases are included in the databases of search-engine type homeopathic software tools, a cured symptoms rubric list at the end (or beginning) of every case could be a quick-check and summary of the "gist" of that case. This would speed up research to identify which case/remedy needs to be read in detail to obtain the relevant information during research on a case.. The case submitter would also grade the intensity of the symptom, helping the process of upgrading. And this concept of a standard rubric block at the end of each case could be extended to include a
standard set of info about the case (date, place, prescriber, sex, age, new to homeopathy or not, medical diagnostics with references available and source; followup duration in months, number of remedies used during period and their names, and whether "acute" or "intercurrent" (as well as can be judged); Whether pt still in contact at date of submission, etc. Having a standardized block of info is a way to speed up information compilation, although this should not be done at the expense of evaluation and quality control.
As well, the body of the case submission could also have some standardization, including guidelines as you have provided in your letter (reproduced below in this message for reference by others reading this).
A drawback of institution of any extended protocol here is that the process of writing up cases, already not popular and quite time-consuming, might become even less common. Care would have to be exercised in design of the standard protocol to keep this in mind and not ask for unnecessary information, and allow provision for "information not available" to a certain degree. The protocol should be as "practitioner friendly" as possible. The fact that the data collection mechanism would be better organized to actually receive and assimilate data so additions occur more quickly
would, I expect, encourage submission of case writeups. This latter effect would probably override the effect of "protocol angst."
I think this idea, or a variant on it , is particularly important to carefully consider at this point in time, when (I understand) there are projects in process to gather cases in digital text form en masse on an ongoing basis. These projects portend huge potential in improvement of our repertories, which are so much more complete than before, but still lacking (partly) because of the need for confirmation of cured symptoms. Getting started on "the right foot" with an appropriate protocol for submission as per the above idea will save immeasureably the time spent
evaluating case information. At least an initial try at repertorization (of only clearly cured symptoms) should be done and graded by the person who takes the case and is thus most familiar with it, whether (or not) the rubric selection and grading is perfectly accurate in the context of the repertory as a whole. This puts most of the evaluation of this kind in the hands of the multitude of prescribers whom will submit, saving analysis later by people or committees looking at the case for the first time. The committee or author has the option of contacting the submitter at a
later time in any case for further information to confirm the information. Setting up this requirement will also get practitioners in the mindset of recording more cured symptoms (even peripheral ones) in cases, creating a finer net for data.
I would suggest collaboration with others involved in collection of cured cases (Kent Associates folks?, Radar/Archibel folks?, Repertory authors, organizations, etc) in the formulation of a protocol which will work for everybody, whom can then possibly standardize their digital platforms, where used, for receipt and collation of this information.
Alright, there's the idea (which I expect you have thought of before); I hope you will consider implementation of something like this, since you are, Jeremy, a great cross-pollinator and organizer in our profession.
Peace in the Worlds,
Andy H.
Finrod wrote: