SOAP 2.0
Thank you for being a user of WebPT Documentation. We're excited and grateful for your interest in helping us build a product you love. You will receive an email notification when the status of your idea changes.
Thank you for being a user of WebPT Documentation. We're excited and grateful for your interest in helping us build a product you love. You will receive an email notification when the status of your idea changes.
I received two of these idea submissions in my inbox. Why did I receive
these emails?
Thanks,
Jason
Per science, there are only two genders so we should keep it that way.
I agree with the concept but as a trans PTA I would encourage clinicians to not think of transgender men and women as separate from men and women when it comes to gender. The Male and Female options ALREADY cover trans men and women. If their gender history is pertinent to their case appropriate documentation of that history is important. However immediately splitting cis and trans within the two binary genders would likely feed into popular misunderstandings of trans people in general which could inhibit our ability to connect with and provide inclusive care to our trans patients.
Additionally, despite being past due, if we are going to fix the documentation of gender in our EMR, inclusion of gender diverse (Non-binary, Agender, Bi/Pan-Gender, Others/etc.) patients is imperative.
A system with "M, F, TM, and TF" only would be inherently flawed and insufficient and better options should be considered.
Lastly, if your concern is insurance claims/denials then clinicians and EMR designers should be looking to collect and document "Gender/Sex per Insurance profile" or some similar wording. Neither a patient's actual/presented gender or assigned gender at birth are guaranteed to give the insurance claim demographics and specifically asking for the information you NEED should be at the heart of data collection.