Bammer wrote:I’ve been going there for over 10 years. They know everything about me.
Asking this to a brand new patient, ok maybe that’s one thing.
You can’t come up with a good reason why they asked me. It’s performative.
Greetings, wounded soul. Perhaps I can help you.
Nearly every year, states adopt new rules for patient demographic data requirements. This data is reported to the Department of Health via the Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS), so much but not all of this change is driven by DOH guidelines. Eligible hospitals can request a waiver, and time is provided for hospitals to update their EMRs.
The new information reporting requirements in Washington state, starting January 2023 are:
Patient medical record number
Sex assigned at birth
Admitting diagnosis code
Patient’s ICD code (1-3) reason for visit
Referring provider’s National Provider Identifier (NPI), as applicable
Facility federal tax number
Insured last name, first name, middle name, suffix
Patient’s relationship to insured code
Insured ID
Most of these fields are already reported by the majority of institutions, and are in fact standard to most EMRs. Establishing them as requirements allows for oversight, consistent reporting, and opens the door to providing assistance to smaller facilities who cannot afford to comply on their own.
But some of these updates represent minor adjustments to existing requirements, often due to other fields that have been added.
The field “sex assigned at birth,” for example, replaces the field “sex,” in order to more clearly distinguish it from recent additions that report gender identity, and also to ensure clarity of reporting and accuracy of care.
Unfortunately, because this means some people will have previously reported their gender identity in the “sex” field (for example, someone who was born female but later transitioned may have previously answered “male” for this field)….and because there are legal risks to having incorrect information in any demographic field (in the event of a malpractice suit, for example, inaccurate charting of any kind can serve as evidence)….and because the field change represents a slight change in meaning (which always triggers a need for reconfirmation), hospitals will need to perform a one-time check with existing patients to confirm that the field remains correct for them.
Now, that’s the broad stroke. But let’s examine your experience…and your reaction to it.
All that you suffered was a single, dumb EMR question. And some folks here may speak unfairly, or even laugh at a person. But just because it looks to them like struggling in the face of absolutely no hardship at all…doesn't mean that’s what it is. I mean that. I, and I hope you, understand that just because something is easy for other people…doesn't necessarily mean that it’s going to be easy for
us. Doesn’t mean that it is
required to be easy for us.
Other people may be naturally built in a manner that lets them navigate being asked a question that doesn’t apply to them, that is unexpected and confusing, and that was added for the sake of legitimizing something we are uncomfortable with, without having an intense emotional reaction. That’s them. It doesn’t have to be everyone. They shouldn’t ACT like it has to be everyone. They shouldn’t target or reject people simply for being different. We all need to be true to the person we are on the inside, and not feel like that person has to be repressed in order for us to be accepted.
read this exchange in the Deep Thoughts voice and it crushes me