When responding to inquiries, I often see patients or parents uploading lengthy information to their inquiries, but the recovery is to ask for the original medical records of past visits as much as possible, not to organize and summarize and paraphrase according to their own understanding. Some patients or parents do not understand this, or even find it troublesome. So, why should we emphasize uploading original medical record information? 1. Is the original information more professional and accurate? A standardized medical record often contains a lot of important information, such as the patient’s basic information (such as age, gender, birth history, family history, etc.) and important information such as the time of occurrence (discovery), cause, progress, treatment process, regression, and status of the disease. This information will play a very important reference role in the judgment of the disease, even if there are deviations or even mistakes, it can be used as a lesson learned to reduce errors, shorten the recovery time of the disease and reduce the cost of consultation. As non-professionals, patients or parents often ignore or shield this information when summarizing and relaying it due to lack of understanding, resulting in information decay. What’s more, some parents only value “valuable” information from ultrasound, CT, electrophysiological examination, corneal topography, fundus photography and other “expensive” equipment, but simply ignore the doctor’s routine examination records, resulting in the loss of important information such as visual acuity, eye position and standardized optometry results. The information is lost. 2. In the process of relaying medical records, it is easy to miss important information or even make mistakes. Secondly, due to the lack of understanding of professional knowledge, transcribers often combine and add or subtract important professional information randomly when handling medical records, resulting in the decay or even error of important information. For example, in the following cases: my child’s amblyopia “500 degrees” (incorrectly combining the information on the developmental status of vision “amblyopia” and the degree of refractive error “500 degrees”). My child’s farsightedness is “0.25” (is it “farsightedness 0.25D” – diopter? Or is it “visual acuity 0.25” – an uncommon way of expressing visual acuity?) My child’s astigmatism is “300 degrees” (missing the “+/-” information for “farsightedness/myopia”); my child’s astigmatism is “200 degrees” (missing the “+/-” information for “farsightedness/myopia”); my child’s astigmatism is 200 degrees” (missing the information of “farsightedness/myopia” represented by “+/-” and the direction of the astigmatism axis); the left eye is “175 degrees of astigmatism ” plus “75 degrees amblyopia” (“175 degrees” myopic or hyperopic astigmatism? Axial position? “75 degrees of amblyopia” – misinformation!) My child has a “macula” (the macula is a structure found in normal eyes, what does it mean?) My child’s astigmatism was found to be “150 degrees” (what kind of astigmatism medication was used?); my child’s astigmatism was found to be “150 degrees” (what kind of astigmatism was used? Computerized optometry or shadowing optometry? –(These are directly related to the reliability of the data!) My child’s “strabismic amblyopia” (exotropia? Internal strabismus? How was the conclusion reached? Degree of amblyopia? Relationship to strabismus? –We don’t know!) My child has “ptosis” (unilateral? Bilateral? degree? –(Unilateral/bilateral, milder is directly related to the principle choice of further management.) …… There are also many times when the degree of information attenuation and error is higher in paraphrasing due to the inability to identify the medical record. Some transcribers, when processing and organizing the original data, list the data obtained from similar or multiple tests together, and due to formatting differences, the data presented after uploading are severely misplaced, confusing, and basically indistinguishable. 3.Some important inspection reports cannot be accurately described in words. In addition, there are some important examination reports and picture files that even professionals cannot accurately describe their entire contents. And these documents are not only indispensable information for accurate judgment of the disease, but also have a certain preservation (for longitudinal comparative study to observe changes in the disease) value. To summarize, in order to facilitate accurate judgment of the patient’s condition, improve consultation efficiency, and facilitate the accumulation of medical records for observation of the condition and clinical research, please take photos of the original medical records and upload them as much as possible during consultation. (This article is authorized by Dr. Zhou Zhe, please do not reproduce it without authorization.)