reading cursive

[Con]

I have recently changed career paths and am now

working in medical records.

 

I am being encouraged to get my degree and

become a coder but to be frank, the idea is

terrifying to me.

 

I cannot read many, many notations in the charts,

and that isn't because of my inability to read cursive,

it's because of the inability of the writers to write it

legibly.

 

I am quite disgusted with some of those physicians and nurses-

I'd like to ask them what their purpose is if

not to actually document something meaningful

in the charts.

[KateGladstone]

Dear Con -- coincidentally (or not-so-coincidentally, given what I do for a living!),

your message reaches me _en_route_ to a day's work of teaching handwriting to

the worst-writing MDs at a large Philadelphia hospital (Friends Hospital) --

one of an increasing number that have me give handwriting lessons to large groups of physicians,

who get Continuing Medical Education credit for attending.

 

This has become a priority because more and more hospitals each day grow aware that

the much-ballyhooed "paperless recordkeeping/prescribing" ...

 

/a/ ... causes more problems than it solves, at a much higher cost than paper and pencil

(see this week's TIME magazine, dated April 6, 2009 -- the story "Wrong Prescription" by Scott Haig, MD:

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1887841,00.html?imw=Y ),

 

and

 

/b/ ... leaves a hospital helpless when the computer network goes down (e.g., through hackers, hurricanes, or any of a number of other disasters).

 

When I teach the doctors how to write readably at emergency-department speed,

I get their attention by starting off with info on

one or more medical-malpractice cases caused by "medi-scrawl" (as I call it) --

then, if time permits, I further bring home the reality of the problem

by having each MD write a sample prescription and swap it with his/her seat-neighbor to read

(usually the doctors cannot at all read each others' Rx's)

 

... and I let them know how very often pharmacists (who should by law call the doctor if they have a question)

often quietly refuse to call, and just guess at the writing:

because (as I point out) a pharmacist in (e.g.) a hospital where each doctor writes 300 - 500 Rx's

per day CANNOT call an illegibly-writing doctor 300 or 500 times a day ... at least, not if the pharmacist wants to remain employed.

(At this point, the MDs chuckle, agree, and then start to feel shocked at what they've admitted by agreeing.)

 

I remind them also that hospital accreditation agencies increasingly have, and increasingly exercise, the power to de-accredit a hospital (or to refuse re-accreditation) when the doctors' handwriting -- including signatures! -- proves illegible. (To test legibility of signatures or other handwritten material, one accreditation agency -- JCAHO, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations -- shows the signature or other material to two MDs who don't know the writer and who don't work in/with the same hospital where the writer works. If either of these two MDs cannot read all or part of the writing/signature, or if both of them claim they can read it BUT they disagree on what it says, what name the signature represents, etc. -- why, then, JCAHO rates that as illegible: and, increasingly, gives that particular medical problem the same particularly bad rating that JCAHO gives to a hospital where the doctors self-administer addictive drugs.)

 

After the above, Con, I then ask the MDs in my classes the very same question that you have asked:

"What do recordkeeping and prescribing mean, when the records and prescriptions do not allow discovering their meaning?

 

After that, the serious work can begin: I can let the MDs know that certainly it wasn't their fault that they learned handwriting techniques which broke down under the speed and stress of the medical environment -- what might have worked for them in elementary school won't work for them in meeting the fast-paced writing demands of a hospital -- so now they need to learn techniques which WILL stand up in this very pressured situation.

 

Often, when a hospital hires me to repair the MDs' handwriting, the hospital does so because trustees or staff-members (usually either MDs or medical-records staffers, including coders) have brought me to their attention: e.g., by letting them know about my web-site (see my sign-off in this e-mail).

 

So I hope that you will remain in medical records, become a coder, and steer people/hospitals towards me ... so that you can increasingly have LEGIBLE rather than illegible records to read and code!

 

;-)

[vans4444]

My own handwriting is appalling and I will fully admit that until I read this thread I was unaware of an special interest in the fate of cursive writing, so my opinions count for little.

 

However, it seems to me that the thread misses an important point. It is the content that is important, not the style. If really interesting messages are only transmitted in cursive writing, people will make the effort to read it, if not they will not.

 

I assume writing has changed and evolved though the ages and will continue to change. It is inevitable.

[AmA]

I knew this was an issue in the US from posts on another forum (about ebook readers, of all places...). I don't know what it's called now in the UK, but when I went to school it was simply "joined up writing" and I remember being desperate to learn to write it as I considered it "grown up" writing - this was in the 70s. I also don't know if it's an issue in schools in the UK for that matter...

 

My personal opinion is that it is still important for people to be able to read and write cursive as things like handwritten notes still exist. And they may as well be taught to write it legibly (whether they'll maintain that ability is another matter entirely!) so that it can be read later either by others or by themselves; rather than "falling into" using it by printing quickly and discovering it's simpler just to join two letters together and leave the pen on the paper than keep lifting it up and putting it down (but that might just be my own bias - I cannot print for any length of time without starting to join up at least some of my letters).

 

As far as the publisher question in the survey goes, I answered other - I'd tell them to keep printing the cursive books, but supplement it with books on other styles of writing. And make sure they were available as ebooks, too

[vans4444]

  AmA said:

I knew this was an issue in the US from posts on another forum (about ebook readers, of all places...). I don't know what it's called now in the UK, but when I went to school it was simply "joined up writing" and I remember being desperate to learn to write it as I considered it "grown up" writing - this was in the 70s. I also don't know if it's an issue in schools in the UK for that matter...

 

My 9 year old daughter is being taught "joined up writing" in England. She started learning it when she was 7. She never prints her letters (unlike dad)

 

[Titivillus]

  KateGladstone said:

A poll on reading cursive (including a question or two on whether cursive will continue) ...

 

 

Thinking about this and are you talking about exemplars of the various cursive or people's normal hands. I sadi that I can read but there are some people's writing that I can't, so is this because of the style or the sloppyness of the writer?

 

 

K

[KateGladstone]

  Titivillus said:

  KateGladstone said:

A poll on reading cursive (including a question or two on whether cursive will continue) ...

 

 

Thinking about this and are you talking about exemplars of the various cursive or people's normal hands. I sadi that I can read but there are some people's writing that I can't, so is this because of the style or the sloppyness of the writer?

 

 

K

 

Indeed I should have differentiated between reading "exemplar-quality" cursive and reading ordinary imperfect cursive scribbles!

If this affects how you'd answer -- if you can read "exemplar-quality" cursive but NOT sloppy cursive approximations of the same exemplar -- post a message saying so.

[ZeissIkon]

I had to answer "other" on one entry -- teach people to read cursive by teaching them to write it! And reading cursive is important, because the vast majority of "ordinary" writing from the 18th through 20th century (those periods where the language itself is likely to still be intelligible) will be in some version of cursive.

 

In my opinion, cursive has the advantage of being faster to write than what I learned as "manuscript", and the (Palmer Method) cursive letters I learned have obvious structural similarities to manuscript letters -- even the "oddball" ones like the lower case S and upper case Q become obvious if you try to see a way to write such a letter quickly and without lifting the pen.

 

My own handwriting is a mix of some manuscript capitals and mostly cursive lower case, with a few oddball bits thrown in here and there.

[Renzhe]

Exemplary quality cursive is easy for me to read. Sloppy cursive approximations of the same exemplar would probably be difficult to read, and irritating if it doesn't have any aesthetic value.

[Lachesis]

I learned how to read cursive because I was taught to write it...and I can read most types of cursive, except for really, really illegible ones--ones that look more like a doctor's signature than handwriting. (Though of course, not all doctors' signatures are bad.)

 

If fountain pens do not survive the digital age, I will be so very depressed, because then it would mean post offices would completely be out of business. Well, for letters....maybe not packages, but still...

Edited June 26, 2009 by Lachesis

[dizzypen]

Oh the joys of catholic school... Even though I was in elementary school in the 90's I remember very well learning how to write and read cursive. Although we were taught to print, we were not allowed to print until 6th grade. As for reading cursive, we were taught cursive first and so we were taught to read cursive along with our handwriting lessons. After the class had mastered reading and writing cursive, we were taught to read and write in print. It was very effective.

 

There are still plenty of cursive writers out there, myself included, so I'm not so worried about it dying out very soon. I know once I have kids (probably in the next 5 years or so) I will teach them cursive even if their school does not.

[Johnny Appleseed]

You all do know that cursive was originally not joined at all. . .

 

John

[caliken]

  Johnny Appleseed said:

You all do know that cursive was originally not joined at all. . .

 

John

http://images.google.co.uk/images?client=f...le&resnum=4

As lettering began to be written at speed, most minuscule letters became naturally joined to each other and this was, and is, known as "cursive" handwriting hence "cancellaresca corsiva". The lettering which became cursive was originally unjoined, but for lettering to be cursive, at least some of the letters must be joined together.

 

Ken

Edited July 5, 2009 by caliken

[effrafax]

Tough quiz!

 

I'm old enough to have learnt cursive in primary school, and thereby learned to read cursive styles. However, I do have trouble with some of the more decorated styles such as Copperplate and Spencerian. Sometimes I have trouble playing hunt-the-letter in amongst all the swirls and flourishes! Mostly majuscules. But then, I haven't spent any time practising it either, as I don't come across it at all in daily life. (Note that some calligraphy styles present the same problem, with the same result: I haven't practised reading it.)

 

I've noticed a similar process watching my boys growing up too. My youngest, now eight, couldn't, until recently, read my handwriting (notwithstanting that it would make a GP proud!), but since learning to write cursive himself, has little trouble with it. He's also keen on learning about fountain pens, paper and other paraphernalia, but being a leftie, has trouble using them with his smaller hands. I'll make sure he's thoroughly indoctrinated though!

 

My eldest is just entering his teen years and couldn't give a t*ss about it all . . . but he does have a really neat cursive writing style, so there's hope for him yet.

 

As far as cursive writing/reading dying out is concerned, there will always be little corners of the world, such as FPN, where it will survive, much as older languages survive in small pockets of populations. That's my hope anyway.

[Nellie]

I can read all cursive styles (and almost anybody's handwriting) very easily, but I have problems with Sütterlin (and hence my Granny's handwriting).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/S%C3%83%C2%BCtterlin.svg/424px-S%C3%83%C2%BCtterlin.svg.png

Edited to get the link in

 

Edited July 27, 2009 by Nellie

[gyasko]

Maria Montessori argued that reading begins with writing. She had the kids trace letter shapes with their fingers, write them in sand, etc. before working on decoding.

[Ondina]

  Johnny Appleseed said:

You all do know that cursive was originally not joined at all. . .

 

John

 

So true, Appleseed. Interesting article on different cursives from its origins.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Special:Search?sear...amp;searchtype=

[Ondina]

  caliken said:

  Johnny Appleseed said:

You all do know that cursive was originally not joined at all. . .

 

John

http://images.google.co.uk/images?client=f...le&resnum=4

As lettering began to be written at speed, most minuscule letters became naturally joined to each other and this was, and is, known as "cursive" handwriting hence "cancellaresca corsiva". The lettering which became cursive was originally unjoined, but for lettering to be cursive, at least some of the letters must be joined together.

 

Ken

 

Thank you for the very accurate clarification, Caliken. That's exactly how my nun school taught us, the more joined the better but not necessarily completely linked. The main purpose of cursive was to provide an everyday, fluid, comfortable hand that could be used at a certain speed, to take notes, keep up with the mental flow of ideas, and even used in a non-friendly writing environment (jotting on the knee, or the back of other person, in a moving vehicle...)

[asianbran]

Cursive certainly is dying. On the SAT's there was a part at the end where you have to write a statement in cursive and then sign your name. For some, it was the most distressing part of the test. Personally, my handwriting looks disgusting in print so I usually just write in cursive.

 

We read an article about this in school and apparently cursive writing improves cognitive function somehow and that essays written in cursive usually get a higher score. From what I know (and in my town) cursive education has whittled down to a practice book that they whip out only if they have time at the end of class.

Edited August 3, 2009 by asianbran

[Joe Beamish]

Cursive is a little like Latin, a so-called dead language. It will continue to live (albeit in the margins) because it is too useful not to.

 

Through high school, I only learned how to print. But in college I took three years of Russian, whose handwriting requires a sort of cursive script. This got me learning how to do it in English, with very little effort once I'd learned to write in Russian through so much drilling. The cursive was SO much easier and more enjoyable than printing. And faster.

 

World enough and time, every pupil should learn cursive. But so many things beg for attention. It's tough. I know many highly literate, creative, expressive people who simply don't write in cursive, and I have to conclude that the skill is useful but not necessary.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Joe Beamish