Medical records

I just got a copy of my medical record from my current primary care physician. I cannot read anything the doctor has written--don't see how anyone could. Each visit is on a separate page with vitals legible (the nurses do these) but there are no typed notes summarizing the visit like what I have gotten in the past--has practice changed on this? The tests I have had such as echocardiogram are typed up and have some scrawled comments by PCP which are also illegible.

I can't see what the value is of this--no one can decipher it. This has pretty much spooked me. I don't like the doctor typing the whole appointment time but if this is the norm now with written records I'd rather see typing.

I have to see this doctor next week--sure do dread it. I have two other issues--it took them a year to get & file my last echocardiogram--first time I've seen it though it was done 6/12. Also, blood sugar has been slightly (110 or so) high consistently for several years & I feel Metformin should have been started sooner to maybe stave off my diabetes. Doctor denied high sugars so I wanted to see for myself & bingo there they are.

What should I do? I feel it would take too much time to bring up everything but I'm also pretty resentful & would like to.

Normal blood glucose is

Normal blood glucose is 72-126 mg/dL. Diabetics aim for 90-144. What makes you think 110 is high?

Metformin assists the body's cells in utilization of insulin, necessary in the absorption of sugar, and and is helpful where insulin resistance is a factor. If you are showing a blood glucose of 110, your pancreas is producing insulin. It's also normal for it to rise in the morning when the liver produces sugar until one's basal insulin reduces that level.

Metformin could drop a level of 110 significantly, producing hypoglycemia. That can be very dangerous.

99 is top of normal on my

99 is top of normal on my tests--I was prediabetic with those readings.

lol tht is why non medical

lol tht is why non medical people should not get copies of medical records, they dont know how to read and decipher them

impatientpatien wrote: 99 is

impatientpatien wrote:

99 is top of normal on my tests--I was prediabetic with those readings.

Were you reading the results of fasting blood glucose levels? If you were 110, that's just a blip. It's the A1C which is telling, because it gives the percentage of coverage of blood cells covered by sugar molecules, on average, over a period of ~2-1/2 months, the average lifespan of these cells. Usually, two A1C tests are required, three months apart, and showing values about 7% to render a diagnosis of diabetes. A single test showing a value of over 11% may indicate diabetes.

If you had a normal A1C and your fasting glucose was >100, that could simply be due to a slowly metabolized sugar in your bloodstream. In diagnosed diabetics, it's a sign of how well the patient is managing their glucose levels.

1) From http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/blood-glucose-control/checking-your-blood-glucose.html:

The American Diabetes Association suggests the following targets for most nonpregnant adults with diabetes. More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for each individual.
Glycemic control
A1C 7%
Preprandial plasma glucose (before a meal) 70–130 mg/dl
Postprandial plasma glucose (after a meal)* <180 mg/dl

2) From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/blood-glucose-target-range/MY00494:

A normal fasting blood glucose target range for an individual without diabetes is 70-100 mg/dL (3.9-5.6 mmol/L). The American Diabetes Association recommends a fasting plasma glucose level of 70–130 mg/dL (3.9-7.2 mmol/L) and after meals less than 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L).

Thank you for your comments,

Thank you for your comments, however, I am familiar with my situation as regards diabetes. I have years of records where my glucose reading is out of normal (not yet diagnosed, but prediabetic) --current research says metformin may help stave off Type II for a time or even prevent it in a case like mine.

Thank you for your opinion that "civilians" shouldn't get medical records because they can't understand them--If you had read what I said you would see that no summaries of visits were typed up but were scrawled in by the doc. I can't decipher his handwriting & don't see how anyone could.

I also referred to the YEAR it has taken to get a report of my last echocardiogram--it's now time for another one.

What I hoped to get was some good advice on dealing with all this on my upcoming doc visit.

tnnya porter wrote: lol tht

tnnya porter wrote:

lol tht is why non medical people should not get copies of medical records, they dont know how to read and decipher them

They are merely scrawls--don't think anyone could read them.

impatientpatien wrote: What

impatientpatien wrote:

What I hoped to get was some good advice on dealing with all this on my upcoming doc visit.

I would just go with the straight forward and honest approach. Lay out your concerns and the reasons for them in a tactful but not overly deferential manner and see what he says. For example, in regards to the handwriting, you might say, "I'm concerned that if you refer me to a specialist they will not be able to understand what has been tried in the past which may cause them to make a mistake." or something like that. If he isn't receptive then find a new doctor (if possible).

As for the typing vs handwritten notes, I've had doctors go either way. Some type. Others write. Of course the writers generally had legible handwriting....

Actually the norm range to

Actually the norm range to shoot for used to be 80-120. That was dropped a while ago and 110 was then considered "pre-diabetic". The current flag for pre-diabetes is now 100. Current standards call for treatment at lower levels than was called for even several years back. Whether 100-110 needs to be treated is a personal call on the part of the physician. Many choose to watch patients at that level and to monitor closely with a repeat test a few months down the road.

3degrees wrote: Actually the

3degrees wrote:

Actually the norm range to shoot for used to be 80-120. That was dropped a while ago and 110 was then considered "pre-diabetic". The current flag for pre-diabetes is now 100.

Yes, it's a flag, not a diagnosis.

Diagnostic values (revised) for hA1C, fasting plasma glucose test (FPG), and oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT): http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diagnosis.

tnnya porter wrote: lol tht

tnnya porter wrote:

lol tht is why non medical people should not get copies of medical records, they dont know how to read and decipher them

Of course ...why the hell would I want to know anything about my medical health.

callsign wrote: tnnya porter

callsign wrote:
tnnya porter wrote:

lol tht is why non medical people should not get copies of medical records, they dont know how to read and decipher them

Of course ...why the hell would I want to know anything about my medical health.

We can access our bank accounts. Why can't we access our medical information? Isn't our health as important as our wealth?

I agree that patients may have great difficulty understanding their medical information at times, but, with assistance, they could be fully informed and fully engaged in their health.

I would love to be able to access my medical information on - line with my health card, and if I didn't understand something, I could question it immediately.

Hi Mic The 2013 Canadian

Hi Mic

The 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association Guidelines:

Fasting blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L (130 mg/dl)

or

2hr pc glucose after a 75-gm oral glucose tolerance test > 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dl)

or

Random glucose > 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dl)

or

HbA1C > 6.5%

In the absence of symptomatic hyperglycemia, if a single laboratory test is in the diabetes range, a repeat confirmatory laboratory test (FPG, HbA1C, 2hPG in a 75-g OGTT) must be done on another day.

The main difference in the new guidelines is the lowering of the HbA1C from > 7.0% to > 6.5%

Twain wrote: In the absence

Twain wrote:

In the absence of symptomatic hyperglycemia, if a single laboratory test is in the diabetes range, a repeat confirmatory laboratory test (FPG, HbA1C, 2hPG in a 75-g OGTT) must be done on another day.

The main difference in the new guidelines is the lowering of the HbA1C from > 7.0% to > 6.5%

Thanks, Twain!

I'd been informed of the change from 7.0% to 6.5% in the program I recently completed, but I wasn't certain (at the time of writing) whether that had been adopted in the US yet. The educators did mention the requirement for a second test where HbA1C was above 7.0% (now 6.5%) but less than 11%.

Here’s an interesting theory

Here’s an interesting theory on diabetes/obesity and compassion for ALL patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.