That's my whole point - acceptable versus mandatory - sm Posted: Jul 15th, 2018 - 12:06 pm In Reply to: You need to check the BP for acceptable and unacceptable terms - sm
Let's say it is now OK, per BP, to leave "sat" or "Afib" as is in a report. Acceptable, not MANDATORY. Acceptable, right? But 20% (just a guess, but maybe about that many of the ones I see) of Client Profiles specifically ask for this to be expanded.
I am fairly familiar with the acceptable and unacceptable terms in BP and JCAHO (not perfect, sometimes I still have to look things up, especially since they do change them) but what I'm talking about is more related to our policy that the CP trumps the BP. If CP doesn't specify otherwise, we use the BP.
It would HELP SO MUCH, I'm trying to say, if we could just go ahead and expand a term like "sat" automatically since no one ever ASKS for it to be left abbreviated, but a good percentage DO ask specifically that it be expanded.
In other words, just because it's acceptable, does it have to be mandatory? Because if we could interpret "acceptable" more like "optional," I would not have to spend all day looking through CPs to see if they want me to expand things we used to automatically expand.
I would just automatically expand them and no one would be upset because the people who don't say anything in their CP, don't care, and the people who do want them expanded are not going to be accidentally overlooked by me happening to miss that one little part of the CP where they mention it.
I would just like to see our approach to this changed. It really does take a fraction of a second to automatically expand Afib or sat, versus how long it takes to scroll through 500 unfamiliar CPs looking to see if I need to expand them. This would not be such a big deal if we were not on production, but we are, and we just spend a lot of time on things like this that seem totally unnecessary.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
