A retrospective immunohistochemical study reveals atypical scrapie has existed in the United Kingdom since at least 1987.

Atypical scrapie is a relatively recent discovery, and it was unknown whether it was a new phenomenon or whether it had existed undetected in the United Kingdom national flock. Before 1998, the routine statutory diagnosis of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) in sheep relied on the presence of TSE vacuolation in the brainstem. This method would not have been effective for the detection of atypical scrapie. Currently, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Western blot are commonly used for the differential diagnosis of classical and atypical scrapie. The IHC pattern of PrPd deposition in atypical scrapie is very different from that in classical scrapie using the same antibody. It is thus possible that because of a lack of suitable diagnostic techniques and awareness of this form of the disease, historic cases of atypical scrapie remain undiagnosed. Immunohistochemistry was performed on selected formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks of ovine brain from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency archives that were submitted for various reasons, including suspect neurological disorders, between 1980 and 1989. It was found that PrPd deposits in a single case were consistent with atypical scrapie. A method was developed to obtain a PrP genotype from FFPE tissues and was applied to material from this single case, which was shown to be AHQ/AHQ. This animal was a scrapie suspect from 1987, but diagnosis was not confirmed by the available techniques at that time.

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve. DESIGN: Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners. SETTING: 25 general practices in Trent region. PARTICIPANTS: 53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content of a sample of records and doctor recall of consultations for which paperless or paper based records had been made. RESULTS: Compared with paper based records, more paperless records were fully understandable (89.2% v 69.9%, P=0.0001) and fully legible (100% v 64.3%, P < 0.0001). Paperless records were significantly more likely to have at least one diagnosis recorded (48.2% v 33.2%, P=0.05), to record that advice had been given (23.7% vs 10.7%, P=0.017), and, when a referral had been made, were more likely to contain details of the specialty (77.4% v 59.5%, P=0.03). When a prescription had been issued, paperless records were more likely to specify the drug dose (86.6% v 66.2%, P=0.005). Paperless records contained significantly more words, abbreviations, and symbols (P < 0.01 for all). At doctor interview, there was no difference between the groups for the proportion of patients or consultations that could be recalled. Doctors using paperless records were able to recall more advice given to patients (38.6% v 26.8%, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to support our hypotheses that paperless records would be truncated and contain more local abbreviations; and that the absence of writing would decrease subsequent recall. Conversely we found that the paperless records compared favourably with manual records.