This is sort of a nice method, I think, of shortening certain things. You'd use your own initial letters, of course. But for instance, I use zzz for "there is no evidence of." Well, then you can just add appropriate letters. As in:

zzza = there is no evidence of ascites
zzzhos = there is no evidence of hepatomegaly or splenomegaly
zzzio = there is no evidence of intestinal obstruction
zzzfod = there is no evidence of fracture or dislocation
zzzl = there is no evidence of lymphadenopathy
zzzht = there is no evidence of head trauma

Etc.

You could shorten this method even more by eliminating some of those z's.

For example, in Instant Text, you can put phrases in the Words advisory (as well as single words in Phrases). You could put "there is no evidence of" in the Singles glossary and only hit one z to call it up, then put the others in Phrases with one z. Unless you use z for a lot of words/phrases and need more than one to differentiate. Because "z" is such an uncommon first letter, I have a full z glossary.

I confess, I just use thrineo.
thri = there is
thrin = there is no
thrine = there is no evidence
thrineo = there is no evidence of
thrie = there is evidence
thrieo = there is evidence of
neo = no evidence of
evo = evidence of

And repeat with W for I for there was no, and what it can lead to is all shorts in the glossary (I hope).

But I can't do the IT trick.

Georg, I'm not too with it this morning, can you give some examples of the replace with W business? I want to understand what you're saying there.

Cheryl, I know of what you're speaking, but I really haven't experimented with that. I must! I will! However, I also have zx for "p.o." in phrases. And zz for "there is no evidence for." I'll play around with it all!

thrw = there was
thrwn = there was no
thrwne = there was no evidence
thrwneo = there was no evidence of
thrwe = there was evidence
thrweo = there was evidence of
thra = there are
thran = there are no

Still clear as mud?

oh and po = p.o.
Just like ie = i.e.

Oh, brother! It always was clear as mud, guess my brain was in a total fog, ha! Thank you, Georg!

Oooh, i.e. and e.g. are must haves! Just the actual letters for me, too!

I've recently added a few "/" entries to my Shorthand ...

/d=per day
/w=per week
/mnth=per month (should shorten that)
/y=per year
/min=per minute
/r=per hour
/h=-1/2 (We can't use the proper fraction font, whatever that's called, hence 1-1/2)

Am I in the right thread with this?

Cheryl -
I have a question about this method. I can see a huge benefit to using this, but I've searched this forum as well as the IT forum, and can't seem to get it. When you say, "put the others in Phrases with one z," do you mean to add a "phrases" section to the singles glossary? Or would you put them into your regular glossary? If you add an entry with just one z, doesn't IT put it into the Words section?

I really, really want to figure this out. I have the feeling that this is one of those very simple things that should be so obvious but isn't...!

Thanks in advance!
-sono_io

Instead of using zzzabc for a short form, shorten it to zabc to alleviate keystrokes. Yes, this is for phrases in your "regular " glossary. You are correct in that an entry with just one z would add the phrase to the Words section. You could also add a phrase to the Singles glossary that would appear when you strike the z.

Why burden your memory with something continuations can do for you?

Try the following. Add these phases with some impossible short form that you will be sure never to use:

qqqq there is no evidence of ascites
qqqq there is no evidence of hepatomegaly or splenomegaly
qqqq there is no evidence of intestinal obstruction
qqqq there is no evidence of fracture or dislocation
qqqq there is no evidence of lymphadenopathy
qqqq there is no evidence of head trauma

The effect of this will be to inform Instant text that of possible continuations of there is no evidence of

ascites
hepatomegaly or splenomegaly
intestinal obstruction
fracture or dislocation
lymphadenopathy
head trauma

So, as soon as you type there is no evidence of (possibly with a single letter, as Cheryl suggests) you will see these continuations appear. The key point here is not so much the number of keystrokes as having one less convention to remember (or usually, forget

WOW - This keeps getting better!
I tried adding the entries as you suggested, and IT offers the continuations as I expected, but only when I type, "There is no evidence ..." and not when I use the single-letter way. Why would that be different, as far as IT offering continuations? Is there a setting or something I'm missing?

Thanks in advance!
-sono_io

Continuations function only for phrases. Single letter shorts are automatically classified as words. I think that may be your problem.

This same method can be easily used in shorthand, and perhaps even with more variations.

Simply decide the letter or letter combination you want, i.e., z, for "there is no evidence of" to z; or "there is evidence of" to z' using only one extra character, either semi-colon or apostrophe to differentiate between there is and there is no.

These can be developed further by adding pause feature and inserting the variable (which can also be done by a shortcut, i.e., hsm for hepatosplenomegaly)and adding a continuation of the sentence.

The easiest one I can think of to demonstrate here is for ages, but can be modified for all needs.

So, for tpiaa I expand to

The patient is a{@INPUT prompt}-year-old African-American

A box pops up, I add either a space and a number or n (space)number, hit enter and space bar, and it is inserted.

I purposely left no blank between a and {Input.. so I can add an "n" if the age requires it, i.e., 8, 80, etc.

Helen! I'm so glad to see you here! I've missed your input! Hello!

Excellent post for SH users. Those are short, short, short, shortcuts! You may want to reproduce your post in the SH commands forum too, possibly. (If you feel like it). Do you use the input prompt method in many, many abbreviations?

Yes, I use it in a lot of phrases, "shells", etc., especially in review of systems, physical examination, and op reports, or even the "templates" (don't knock the use of my word template, please) for individual doctors hps, prog notes, discharge summaries, etc. In some of the phrases, I also add a "selection" list if I know that he/she/it will usually use one of several phrases in that section, i.e.,

tporr

{@INPUT
the patient was taken to the operating room and placed in the left lateral decubitus position.
the patient was taken to the operating room and placed in the supine position.
the patient was taken to the operating room and placed in the prone position.
} {@INPUT prompt} anesthesia was induced successfully. The {@INPUT prompt} was prepped and draped in the {@INPUT normal sterile fashion
usual sterile fashion
usual fashion
sterilely
usual sterile orthopedic manner}.

I then can select the phrase I want entered for those with multiple selections.


I work in two systems, neither of which are particularly nice to use to insert or delete words, phrases, etc. Using the pause feature, I can make a basic shell, perhaps of an EGD, and still have the normal part expand without additional work. I know in other systems you can use insert key, etc., but on these two programs, this is not that easy, nor is deleting. You need to learn to be a contortionist. So, I guess where others might put "fields" or asterisks or some other thing to jump to, I use an pause prompt in the shortcut.

This is not correct. Continuations work in terms of the last words entered, regarless of how you entered them. For example, type the words "there is no evidence of" directly and you should see the continuations. It works on my machine and I have no idea why it does not work on hers.

Okay, my apologies. My bad. Ten lashes with a limp catheter for me.

But if you're gonna throw out my great explanation that sounded so logical, you've got to come up with one of your own in its place, Jean. Otherwise we'll have to give you ten lashes with a used limp catheter.

Shiela, you are too funny!

ozgal

Jean -
Thanks for your response! It is working now, after I closed and restarted IT. WIT-WOOO! I'll definitely have to experiment some more with Cheryl's suggestions of using the singles glossary! It never occurred to me that I could use the "singles" glossary for common phrases, even though I knew about phrases in the words section and vice versa!

Thanks again for the response, as well as a terrific product!!

-sono_io

All so true, I did try it out, in fact! It's something I've already intuitively known from using IT, but I enjoyed this lightbulb moment. And I think I have to utilize this method more! Definitely. Especially if I can use completely bizarre short forms I will never use. ...........Hmmm. Thanks!

I did give "there is no evidence of" a short of just plain "z" and put it in my singles glossary. Nice!

You're in the right thread, Holly! And those are short! Thanks! Those "per" ones are a must. Have you one for "per patient" and "per the patient?"

Helen, it sure is a cool idea to have both z; and z' as short forms, one to differentiate for each variation.

You could make it whatever you want, "the patient has a history of" with z; and "the patient has no history of" with z'

These ideas are so useful. We all know what phrases we hear more often than anything else. I even have an actual Word macro with an assigned shortcut key for "The patient has a history of." It's the only one I do it for, but the phrase is just that common. This would work just as well, better even, as you can differentiate capitalizing the word "the" or not.

Oh, thanks, Harrie - I hadn't thought of those! Also, "per his/her report," etc.

Swipe!