 |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
 |
|
 |
Nuance
|
 |
Yet more proof (not that it is needed)...that Nuance is - not in any way about Patient Safety.... Posted: Aug 20th, 2015 - 3:16 pm
Docking the MOST pay for pending when we need a second listen for WHATEVER reason. Why don't they dock more pay for ERRORS instead? Wouldn't THAT at least make it SEEM like Patient Safety was their number 1 concern?
The fair way, if docking of pay has to be done, would be to not set an actual percentage limit but to simply pay less (that 7 cpl) for the LINES THAT YOU PENDED ONLY.....I think that would actually come close to being fair (so long as there were "exceptions" such as incomprehensible (for whatever reason) audio, dictator errors, descrepancies, and things like that). They could maybe have a check box if it falls in that category..so it doesn't get counted..of course having those reasons verified to ensure the lowly MTs takes advantage, which you and I fellow MTs all know it is actually EASIER/FASTER to transcribe/edit a report if at all possible than to have to fill it with blanks and go back and try to hear WTH they were saying, finally pending it with an explanation.....but I digress.....
I am sure they could put their collective noggins together to come up with an actual fair way to do this if they were so inclined.....they sure did a great job in coming up with ways to screw us....
Oh, Nuance, I can hear you saying right now, assuming you read this...."All of that is just too complicated....exceptions, blah blah blah, having to pay someone to verify the exceptions, blah blah...." Well what you are doing now is no doubt TWICE as complicated, yet when things can work out in YOUR favor well it's just worth it then.
A benefit for patient safety would be that no desperate MT (poor thing, she wants to pay her bills and eat) would, the second they know they have gone over that 10%, realize that they are now getting 7/3.5 cpl for ALL work in the PP that they have already done as well as what they will do and just have to make that decision on whether they want to just accept the 100 to 300 or so pay cut that PP in the name of PATIENT SAFETY and continue doing their best OR speed it up to at least hopefully make up a little for this unfair loss, thus upping the chance of getting that dreaded subjective "major" or "critical" error...but at least minimizing the amount their check will be slashed...because....alas, Nuance, thinks that sending work for a second listen is WORSE than possible actual critical errors in a medical report.....
All a moot point, I know...as they are crazy....like a fox.
Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
 |
|
 |
|
