Storing medical information of patients in electronic rather than handwritings
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific points made in the reading passage.
The passage and the talk both discuss the replacing electronic storing of medical data in hospitals and infirmaries instead of handwritten papers. The writer contends that this approach would have many advantages. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessments. She demonstrates three reasons to cast doubt on the claims made in the reading.
The first allegation of the scrip against which the orator argues is that using electronic storing method would reduce the costs significantly. In contrast, the professor highlights the fact that it would not result in remarkable decreasing in the costs. Since doctors need an emergency backup, by storing information electronically there is still requirement to have record spaces. She further asserts that these written documents are needed for legal cases in the future. Therefore storing of handwritten papers of information is inevitable.
Second, according to the text, another concomitant efficacy of storing these data in computer files has to do with preventing the errors made by the human; although the speaker finds this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that most of doctors still use pen and pencil for recording the patient's information and prescriptions, and after that some people would enter these written papers into computer. So, this strategy not only don not reduce the possibility of occurring mistakes, but also increases it, because other people rather than doctors themselves interpret the handwritings.
Lastly, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that digital files help the researchers in their works, saying that researchers could not have easy access to these files, because of the privacy policy of the country's law. Most of people usually block the accessibility of their medical information.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-04-24 | majid.fazlollahi | 80 | view |
- Ways to eliminating the destructive effect of the glass architectures for the flying birds. 80
- Whether a fossil is connected to the ancient bees or not 75
- the possibility of flying the ancient pterosaurs 90
- birds problem with the glasses of the buildings which they crash all the time 66
- creation of new regulations for handling and storing of the power plants waste. 85
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 215, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...is approach would have many advantages. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors ...
^^^
Line 2, column 474, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...e needed for legal cases in the future. Therefore storing of handwritten papers of inform...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 245, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the doctors') or simply say ''most doctors''.
Suggestion: most of the doctors; most doctors
...he bolsters her opinion by stating that most of doctors still use pen and pencil for recording ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 304, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...ll use pen and pencil for recording the patients information and prescriptions, and afte...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 234, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'Most of', you should use 'the' ('Most of the people') or simply say ''Most people''.
Suggestion: Most of the people; Most people
...the privacy policy of the countrys law. Most of people usually block the accessibility of thei...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, still, therefore, as to, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1536.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52517985612 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85469221393 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611510791367 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.0318350352 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.714285714 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21428571429 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.142608456313 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046256201611 0.0996497079465 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438771057598 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0804764174531 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041036921648 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.