IVMS ICM-Problem Orientated Medical Record (POMR)

IVMS-ICM/MIC/10/11 Problem Orientated Medical Record (POMR)

Problem Orientated Medical Record (POMR)

Marc Imhotep Cray, M.D.

For: IVMS ICM-Physical Diagnosis PowerPoints and Notes

Source/modified from:

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/MEDICINE/subint/pomrfinal.htm

Problem Orientated Medical Record (POMR)

The POMR as initially defined by Lawrence Weed, MD, is the official method of record keeping

use by most medical centers and thus in most undergraduate medical schools. Many physicians object to its use for various reasons - it is too cumbersome, inhibits data

synthesis, results in lengthy progress notes, etc. However, the proper use of the POMR does

just the opposite and results in concise, complete and accurate record keeping. A brief

overview of the salient features of the POMR will be helpful.

The basic components of the POMR are:

1. Data Base - History, Physical Exam and Laboratory Data

2. Complete Problem List

3. Initial Plans 4. Daily Progress Note

5. Final Progress Note or Discharge Summary

Note: 1, 2 and 3 above must be completed by the admitting physician.

DATABASE

The importance of the Data Base is obvious and must include a complete history and physical

exam. Many hospitals include certain routine laboratory studies (CBC, SMAC, EKG, chest x-ray, urinalysis, etc.) for each patient admitted. If these are available to the admitting

physician, they are to be included in the initial data base along with a history and physical. As

additional information is collected it is added to the Data Base.

COMPLETE PROBLEM LIST

After the admitting physician performs the history and physical, reviews the basic laboratory

data and records the data base, the Problem List is constructed and recorded. The

construction of a Problem List is the initial step (for the next step, see number 3 - Initial

Plans) of what physicians "really do". That is, once they have seen the patient, physicians

http://drimhotep.ning.com/

http://www.scribd.com/collections/2785595/IVMS-ICM-Physical-Diagnosis-PowerPoints-and-Notes

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/MEDICINE/subint/pomrfinal.htm


think about and define "what is wrong with the patient" or "what are this patient's problems."

Problems are either active or inactive (inactive problems are usually prior, resolved medical

or surgical illnesses that are still important to be remembered). Dr. Weed had defined an

active problem as anything that requires management or further diagnostic workup.

Physicians often get caught up in defining Problems and Problem Lists, accusing each other of lumping, splitting, etc. This is unnecessary. Important facts to be noted in constructing a

problem list are these:

A. A problem should be defined at its highest level of defensibility. Consider, for example,

a beginning medicine clerk who admits a patient with vomiting and confusion. On

physical exam the patient is found to have muscle twitching and a pericardial friction

rub. The initial lab data reveals a BUN of 100 and potassium of 7.0. The student lists

each of these abnormalities as a separate problem. This listing of six problems tells us that the beginning student does not recognize that all of these are manifestations of

one problem, uremia. A second-year resident might have recorded the Problem List as

having only one problem, uremia, and included all the other abnormalities under that

problem. Both Problem Lists are acceptable. The second-year resident is merely

reflecting a higher degree of understanding. The following day the clerk's Problem List

could be modified to facilitate more precise (and less lengthy) daily progress notes.

Resolving problem 2-6 under 1, uremia, allows one daily progress note to be written for that

problem and tells an observer reading the patient's chart that all the signs and symptoms in problems 2-6 are related to manifestations of uremia. The date 5/3 tells the observer to see

the notes of that day to explain the redefining of the Problem List.

B. The Problem List must include all abnormalities noted in the initial data base. Again,

each abnormality need not be separately recorded (see above example).

C. The Problem List is refined as problems are either resolved or further defined.

1. Example--Problem Resolved: A patient is admitted with a fever and cough

productive of yellow sputum which on Gram stain reveals Gram positive

intracellular diplococci. The patient is treated for seven days with penicillin and

the patient's problem clinically and radiologically resolves.

Prob.# Date

Entered Problem List

Problem

Resolved

1 5/2/84 BUN 5/3 uremia

2 5/2/84 K 5/3 See #1

3 5/2/84 Muscle twitching 5/3 See #1

4 5/2/84 Pericardial friction rub 5/3 See #1

5 5/2/84 Vomiting 5/3 See #1

6 5/2/84 Confusion 5/3 See #1


Prob.# Date


Problem

Resolved

1 5/2 pneumococcal pneumonia

5/9

The date 5/9 refers an observer to that date's progress note which will explain why the

problem is considered resolved.

2. Problem Further Defined: Consider the first example of the patient with uremia. On day 5/7 a renal biopsy is done which reveals the etiology of the renal failure. The Problem

List would then show:

Prob.# Date


Problem

Resolved

1 5/2

BUN 5/3 Uremia 5/7 Secondary

to membranous glomerulonephropathy

Again the date of 5/7 will refer the reader to the progress note for that day which should

reveal the result of the renal biopsy.

D. If the initial data base is incomplete, the Problem List must state so.

Example: A female patient who is admitted with upper GI bleeding has not had a pelvic exam

in 2 years. A pelvic and Pap Smear are not done on admission because the patient is

unstable. The problem list must include a problem that states

Prob.# Date

Entered Problem List Problem Resolved

2 5/2 Incomplete Data Base

Pelvic/Pap Not Done

Once the patient is stable and the pelvic exam/Pap smear is done, the problem is resolved.

Prob.# Date


Problem

Resolved

2 5/2

Incomplete Data Base

5/9

Pelvic/Paps Not Done

Pelvic/Paps Done-Normal


E. The Positive Review of Systems: Many physicians wonder what to do with the patient

who answers affirmatively for every question asked in the review of systems. Does

each positive have to be recorded separately? Obviously not!

Example: For an elderly, lonely female who is admitted with a hip fracture and whose

physical exam is normal except for the hip and whose answers are positive for every question asked in the review of systems, the physician could list the problems: #1 - Fracture left hip,

and #2 - Positive review of systems. Or, recognizing that all these affirmatives may be

manifestations of depression, the physician could list #2 - Depression.

INITIAL PLANS

The next process that a physician undertakes after deciding "what is wrong" is "what to do

about what is wrong." This is the initial plan and must be written by the admitting physician

after the Problem List is constructed.

For each problem defined, a SOAP note must be recorded.

The Subjective and the Objective are each a brief review of the abnormalities identified in the

history, physical, and initial lab data, which pertain to that particular problem. These need not

be lengthy, but simply one or two lines reviewing the pertinent data.

The Assessment is a brief but pertinent paragraph describing what the physician thinks about

that particular problem. If the problem recorded is a sign or symptom requiring a differential

diagnosis, the DDx must be recorded in a prioritized manner with a brief statement as to why the physician includes the differential that he or she does. If the problem is a known

diagnosis (example - asthma), the physician must include in the Assessment a statement that

describes the severity and why the problem has worsened requiring admission to the

hospital.

The Plan must include three distinct groupings:

i. Diagnostic Plan: The diagnostic plan includes all the diagnostic workup which

the admitting physician feels will be necessary. If the Assessment includes the

differential diagnosis, then each must be ruled in or ruled out in the diagnostic

plan. This may be done by way of a Venn diagram. Consider a 23 year-old female admitted with pleuritic chest pain for which the admitting physician

includes pulmonary embolus, pericarditis, or viral pleuritis in the differential

diagnosis. The diagnostic plan may be as follows:


If the problem is a known diagnosis, then the diagnostic plan must include additional workup

needed either to further define the problem or to assess the severity of the problem.

ii. Therapeutic Plan: Must detail all initial therapies started and their rational. iii. Patient Education Plan: Details the initiation of plans to educate the patient of

what the problem is and how the patient will deal with it in the future.

DAILY PROGRESS NOTES

Many physicians object to the POMR because its use results in lengthy, redundant progress

notes. However, when used properly, the POMR does just the opposite and results in notes

that are clear, direct, brief and complete. A few helpful hints regarding the progress notes

are:

A. A note for each active problem identified need not be written every day. If nothing has

changed regarding a particular problem, a note for that problem need not be written.

An observer will refer back to the prior day=s note to get a progress report on that

particular problem.

B. The S, O, A, or P need not be rewritten if nothing is changed for that particular aspect

of the problem. C. A common error in writing daily progress notes concerns restating the problem under

the Assessment in the daily note. Example: If the problem is congestive heart failure,

the Assessment for that particular problem on any day cannot be "congestive heart

failure." This is simply a restatement of the problem. However, the physician must give

a status report (example - better, worse, or etiology determined) under the

assessment.

FINAL PROGRESS NOTE OR DISCHARGE SUMMARY

The final progress note should include all active problems, each defined as to its furthest

resolution on the Problem List. The Subjective should include a brief review of the course of symptoms. The Objective should review the course of objective parameters. The

Assessment and Plan should include the probable course to follow and define end-points as a

guide for further therapy. The emphasis on the final progress note should be the unresolved

problems. Problems which are resolved can be written up briefly.


REFERENCES

Blount, M., Green, S.S., Hamory, A., Kinney, A.B. and Sanborn, C.W., 1978.

American Journal of Nursing; 78(9): 1539-42. Documenting with the

problem-oriented record system.

Brown, S.H., Miller, R.A., Camp, H.N., Guise, D.A. and Walker, H.K., 1999.

Annals of Internal Medicine; 131(2): 117-26. Empirical derivation of an electronic clinically useful problem statement system.

Campbell, J.R., 1998. Proceedings / AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 285-9.

Strategies for problem list implementation in a complex clinical enterprise.

Chute, C.G. and Elkin, P.L., 1997. Proceedings / AMIA Annual Fall

Symposium; 570-4. A clinically-derived terminology: qualification to

reduction. Dunea, G. 1978. BMJ; 1(16128): 1686-7. Confusion orientated medical

records.

Elson, R.B. and Connelly, D.P., 1997. Proceedings / AMIA Annual Fall

Symposium; 233-7. The impact if anticipatory patient data displays on

physician decision making: a pilot study. Hales, J.W., Schoeffler, K.M. and Kessler, D.P., 1998. Proceedings / AMIA

Annual Fall Symposium; 275-9. Extracting medical knowledge for a coded

problem list vocabulary from the UMLS Knowledge sources.

Hayes, G., 1993. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Computer

Applications in Medical Care; 103-106. Computers in the Consultation: the UK Experience.

Hayes, G., 1996. Proceedings / AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 454-8. Medical

records: past, present and future.

Hofing, A.L., McGuigan, M.B. and Merkel, S.I., 1979. Journal of Nursing

Administration; 9(12): 43-8. The importance of maintenance in implementing

change: an experience with problem-oriented recording. London, R., Calorosa, E. and Barresi, B.J., 1981. American Journal of

optometry and Physiological Optics; 58(5): 393-9. Problem orientation in

vision therapy.

Milhous R.L., Aronson M.D., Tormey, D.M. and Ostrowski, C.P., 1978. Journal

of Medical Education; 53(2): 137-8. Student and house officer evaluation: the POMR approach compared with other methods.

Ludwig, C.A., 1997. Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis; 86(3): 55-

8. Problem list in computer-based patient records.

Meyers, K.C., Miller, H.J. and Naeymi-Rad, F., 1998. Proceedings / AMIA

Annual Fall Symposium; 325-9. Problem focused knowledge navigation: implementing the problem focused medical record and the O-HEAP note.

O’Neil, M.J., Payne, C. and Read, J.D., 1995. Meth Inform Med; 34: 187-92.

Read Codes Version 3: A user led Terminology.

Salmon, P., Rappaport, A., Bainbridge, M., Hayes, G. and Williams, J., 1996.

Proceedings / AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 463-7. Taking the problem-oriented medical record forward.

Scales, J.E. and Johnson, M.S., 1975. Hospital and Community Psychiatry;

26(6): 371-3. A psychiatric POMR for use by a multidisciplinary team.


Shaughnessy, M.K. and Burnett, C.N., 1979. Physical Therapy; 59(2): 160-6.

Implementation of the problem-oriented progress note in a skilled nursing

facility. Starfield, B., Steinwachs, D., Morris, I., Siebert, S. and Westin, C., 1979.

Medical Care; 17(7): 758-66. Concordance between medical records and

observations regarding information on co-ordination of care.

Stratmann W.C., 1980. Medical Care; 18(4): 456-64. Assessing the problem-

oriented approach to care delivery. Switz, D.M., 1976. Archives of Internal medicine; 136(10): 1119-1123. The

problem-oriented medical record: evaluation and management of anaemia

before and during use.

Tait, I.G., 1977. BMJ; 2(6088): 683-8. The clinical record in British general

practice.

Tange, H.J., Schouten, H.C., Kester, A.D. and Hasman, A., 1998. JAMIA; 5(6): 571-82. The granularity of medical narratives and its effect on the

speed and completeness of information retrieval.

Warren, J.J., Collins, J., Sorrentino, C. and Campbell, J.R., 1998. Proceedings

/ AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 280-4. Just-in-time coding of the problem

list in a clinical environment. Weed, L. L., 1968. NEJM; 278: 593-599. Medical records that guide and

teach.

Weed, L.L., 1969. Medical Records, Medical Education and Patient Care. The

Problem-Oriented Record as a Basic Tool. Cleveland, Case Western Reserve

University Press.