(Part of this is copied from a different thread around here somewhere)

When I got Barbara Grow's 9600-phrase Smartype abbreviation dictionary a number of years back (it was a thank-you for something I did for her), I noticed that she had lots of verb phrases and lots of prepositional phrases. Learning to use those has sped me up bunches -- far more than Mary Morken's word-by-word method ever did for me -- and her system is so simple (first 3 letters of first word of phrase plus first letter of each subsequent word) that it has helped me figure out bunches more. I'm dead serious, with her system I doubled my speed -- partly because I had never used phrases before and partly because I have ADD and the abbvs kept dragging me along to keep going almost as well as when I was using Finish Line as my only productivity software during my first year as an MT umpty-ump years ago with no other expander (sighing nostalgically, wishing I could find something like Finish Line to use along with my Windows software or that would work with WP51/ST in XP like it did with Win98)

I don't really want to give wholesale lists culled from my abbvs, because I bought several abbv systems and added them to my 20-some-odd-thousand list, but here are some that I know I added that will give you an idea of the system:

clead = clean and dry
comit = comes in today
comitf = comes in to follow up
fleae = flex and extend
fleaes = flexes and extends
fleaej = flexion and extension
clacal = clamped, cut, and ligated
clacasl = clamped, cut, and suture ligated
temtd = temporarily totally disabled
briansng = bright affect, normal speech, normal grooming
butanlt = but are not limited to


I know it's not the method many of you folks use, but for ST and for SH it works really well, and I don't have to remember which abbv is which like I used to with the "one letter per word" methods.

This looks like it might be interesting to say the least. I do have a question though, how do you handle the phrases like "accompained by her mother" or "accomplished by closure of...." other phrases where the beginning word has the same 3 beginning letters? Do you add a fourth beginning letter to tell the difference?

TIA

I have a different method for many phrases with the same short, such as "accompanied by her mother" or "accomplished by closure of...." I add the last letter of the last word to my short form to bring the phrase I want to the top of my advisory. (I detest hitting the Shift or Ctrl keys to pick a phrase. )

Cheryl, do you mean you would have:

otrft = of the right foot
otrfk = of the right flank

That is a nice idea, too! Hmmm! You folks have my wheels churning lately!

I'm with you, Babs! These are interesting methods.

Yep, Harrie. I seem to have less conflicts using the last letter of the last word.

Well, I'm going to adopt these ideas. I love them and think they will help me. One thing about Barb Grow's method, as I said elsewhere - it sure would make it easy for phrases beginning with "his" or "her" - from this point on, I'm using it with those. This will also be excellent for differentiating between phrases such as "in the superior vena cava" versus "into the superior vena cava." At least, for me. I can leave the "in" ones with each first letter of each word, and use the "int" and then first letter of each word for the phrases beginning with "into."

Cheryl, I really like that. As you know, I like to put in every phrase possible! Instant Text makes it all so easy that any letter will do me; sometimes I put an x on the end, or just add the second letter of the last word, but I'm a "system" person; that's always best, as it makes one not even have to look at advisories! So, I'm swiping that one starting today!

Thanks to all!

I am pretty new here and still feel new as an MT (3 years working), but I have used i for "his" and e for "her/hers" to begin sentences. Sometimes that worked pretty good for me.

for example:

ipe=his physical examination
epe=her physical examination

ipeipf=his physical exam is positive for
epeipf=her physical exam is positive for

I am sure I'm not the first to think of this. In fact, it was on of my former employers who suggested it.

Have a good one!

Frankly, wren......I love it! I really do. Thanks so much for sharing!

Oh! I know where else I shall apply this "Grow" method! It hit me between the eyes yesterday.

I don't know about you, but I find Cardiology studies such as echocardiograms, Holter reports, etc., to be great with expanders. Really, really can fly on those. Of course, I have put a lot of effort into making that so! Anyway, I love what I have but it could be even better if I use this for things like mild tricuspid regurgitation, moderate tricuspid regurgitation, minimal tricuspid regurgitation, etc. And that's just one example. I think there shall be a ton I can use effectively. I'll share my list when I get it done!

Harrie, I'm glad you brought up the "grow"method of adding abbreviations again. I have been going back through my ShortHand and making some changes and it was like opening a treasure chest! There were things in there I had forgotten all about using the ABCZ method.

I also have been using a method from another thread (can't remember exactly who wrote it) where she takes an abbreviation and uses the "d" for the "ed" and "g" for "ing", etc.... I had been doing that since first using SH. By going back through SH, I have been able to take my forgotten and unused ABCZ entries and turn them into great abbreviations by taking my single-word abbreviations and using the "grow" method together. I use the single-word abbreviation and then add the first letter of the next word in my sentence.

I have also turned my "long sentence" abbreviations into more shorter, easier (at least for me) to read sentences from the suggetion window and that has helped too.

I have seen a difference in my speed and accuracy and am looking forward to more! Thanks very much to the person to brought up the "grow" method suggestion!

Oh gosh, Babs, that's exciting! I wish I could see all of your changes! (Which is impossible to keep detailed track of, I know). Your post is just such a reminder that you can work on your expander files and make them work better for you. It's not lost on me you said both your speed and your accuracy has improved. As much as expanders are talked about for the "bloopers" that can slip by even the best of us, I think the reverse is true too - you can make yourself more accurate with less possibility of having to fix typos, you have the option of putting in the most horrendous terms that you rarely get so you know you'd have to look it up again, and you can fine-tune to the point that expander bloopers, if any, are going to be rare indeed.

Thanks for the shot in the arm!

Okay! Made these so far, and there's no question they'll be a great addition to my Cardiology arsenal! Cool!

Edit: I moved these to Abbreviations by Specialty Forum, Cardiac - Insufficiency and Regurgitation. No use having duplicates floating around.

Hi everyone,
This is my first post. I like everything about this subject. One thing I myself stumbled on to help me with certain verb phrases (i.e., was admitted, was harvested, was skeletanized, etc.) is to use for was wz and then two or three letters of second verb. It really is not confusing. Example was mobilized = wzmb, was transferred = wztf. was skeletanized = wzskz. The thing I like about this is that the possibilities are endless. I use wr for were. You would be amazed. Try it. It should be all open since wz and wr not frequently used abbreviations. Actually one could just go on from there, was taken down wztkd. Oh yes, I have one combination was performed = wzp. I think these two words are dictated together more than any other. What do ya think?

Thanks Debbie

I think it's a great tip, is what I think! That is a very nice idea, for having was and were phrases without conflicts or just simple confusion on which you want. Yep, was and were are as common and frequent as you can get...thanks a lot, Debbie. Sure enjoyed that input!

A pleasure to have you here. Welcome to the board!

Debbie, I like the way you think. I am adding your "wz/wr" idea to my arsenal as we speak. Thanks for the great idea, its a winner!./bj

Yeah, Jettybo! I used it for a few this weekend, and plan to keep adding them!

Also, at the risk of making people wish I would shut up, I'm finding this first 3-letter, then each first letter of phrase thing, really effective! Though it's too late for me to start all over and do it with most of my short forms, it's fantastic for all those things that begin with mild, or moderate, or excruciating, etc. Take severe abdominal pain, for instance. Or excruciating abdominal pain. Or mild, moderate, marked, minimal. Or vague. Hehehe. I just feel so much like I have a brand new toy!

Yeah, I can't shut up about it, it's true...also excellent for radiology, not only differentiating between in and into, but involving, as well.

For myself, I could have:

itlb = in the low back
inttlb = into the low back
invtlb = involving the low back

I do like the idea of Barbara Grow's method. What about modifying entries after IT compilations? Is it time-consuming to modify each entry? How do you do it? Is there an easier way? Thanks for any input.

Junee

Junee, my thoughts on that are that compilations produce mostly phrases for continuations, and really in that case, you end up just hitting your marker key to get the continuation, so I don't see modifying those at all as something I would want to do; in fact, it might "break" a lot of continuations.

I think the best way to do these is to make your list and then import them using the formula method. (See top forum). Meanwhile, you can modify them as you come across the entries, and just start adding new phrases using this method as they come up.

It's been awhile for me now, and I would say I am selective about these entries. Meaning, I definitely don't find them practical for all entries; for many entries, it would be making the short longer than I need to. And yet for others, I swear by it and love it. I'd have to really think about it to formulate when I use it and when I don't, but off the top of my head, I'd say I find it great for adjectives.

If you really wanted to do mass editing of a lot of your entries, I'd suggest opening your glossary in Notepad and doing it that way. Just be sure that before you do, you make a backup copy of your glossary or glossaries, in case anything gets messed up.

[font=Arial][size=7]

Hi. This is my first post. I've gotten so many helpful ideas from all of you and am looking forward to increasing my production with your tips on expanders. Thought I'd share one that I use. It is for headings. For example, chief complaint, I use hcco. I put an h in front of every short form I use for headers, that way if I have to type the same short form in the body of the report I just use cco for chief complaint. I don't use cc (for obvious reasons).

hhpi: History of Present Illness:
hpmh: Past Medical History:
hpsh: Past Surgical History:

You get the idea. Hope that helps someone as much as all of your tips have helped me.



Karen

Thanks for your help, Harrie.

I have made an AH program (my very first that works lol! - Grabber1 and Sheila may recall my pathetic attempt to write my first one! ) where in IT, it opens the Add Glossary Entry and automatically selects 1 - 5 phrases (I have Alt-1 thru Alt-5 to select) and abbreviates accordingly and adds it to the selected glossary - abcaaz for 3 - 5 phrases (Grow method - not sure yet if this will work for me yet though - I may change it to aaaz), ababz for 2 word-phrases and abcz for single words. It is tailored the way I like it. I also have w for was, s for has, d for had, o for on, f for of, m for him, r for her, to be automatically abbreviated.

The Add Glossary takes only the first character for phrases, and this makes it easy for me. With one keystroke, I can add my entry into the glossary.

I am sure others have written more sophisticated scripts, but this one works fine for me.

BTW, do you have different abbrevs for different phrases? My problem would be to remember them all... I can see though how this would help.

June

Having the shorts in that particular method incorporated into your AHK script sounds sophisticated enough to me. Excellent! The automatic selection is something I could never be without now, it's so wonderful.

Junee, I have a few that are the same (and many compilation entries that are the same), but generally, I try to make a differentiation. Find that is better for me. Though with some, you know exactly where they are located in the order of things and don't even have to think about it. Yes, having everything the same for me would not be to my liking.

Just to get a sense for the entirety of the method, how does Barbara Grow deal with single words? Also, do you find her method to be faster than ABCZ? If so, why? Thanks a bunch. I'm a new Andrews grad and hoping to begin to feel at home with one consistent (or nearly consistent) method from the beginning.

Cabert, who am I to say, but I do feel a bit compelled to say you may never find out how Barbara Grow deals with single words. The original poster has not been here in ages, and I'm not sure how many people know the answer to that question. For single words, ABCZ works great, in my opinion. Plus, if you see some system for certain words that appeals to you, you'll know it. Or, you may just think of something that YOU like. If you're anything like me, you're going to find that using the ABCZ method consistently sort of gives you ideas. It builds on itself.

Anyway, perhaps I'll be proven wrong and someone who knows the answer, will answer.