The end of narrative report can be so helpful if it’s done properly.
If you get a narrative report, that’s just Jane Doe came in from an accident we treated her and now she’s dismissed.
That’s not going to work very well.
But if you get a narrative report where it says, Hey, Jane Doe was seen after this accident, walks through everything that happened, conditions at the time, the type of impact, the type of car that was there, how far the car was pushed. Those are the physics of that then talks about the injuries, how they’re tied to the mechanism of injury from there. Then the treatment plan is then tied to the outcome measures you would expect based on the injury.
And then from there, when you got to MMI, you explained why you got to MMI and if there’s going to be permanency and what that means for the rest of their life and future care. That’s pretty helpful to you.
That’s the gold standard, what you just described is the gold standard. The biggest miss that I see in charts is not tying the crash to the injury. There is the biggest disconnect in, we call it causation in my world. The biggest disconnecting causation. Obviously, this person didn’t have any pain whatsoever. I see a lot of degenerative conditions or some preexisting conditions all this thesis or something like that. They have this pre-existing condition but it doesn’t have any pain. So it’s an asymptomatic pre-existing condition.
And instead of doing the very basic thing of saying, the patient was in a high-speed rear-end crash, 40 miles an hour, sustained serious neck injury with whiplash, now has pain eight out of 10 because of the crash. They don’t put because of the crash and they also don’t take the step beyond that which is to say prior to the crash patient experienced no pain.