 |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
 |
|
 |
Nuance
|
 |
Absolutely agree - see message Posted: Nov 13th, 2015 - 7:40 am In Reply to: This is what we are graded on. - Newcomers BEWARE.
I worked in management for a huge MTSO some 15 years ago, and I had the idea that MTs should transcribe ONLY the text of a report in a standardized format, and there would be an inhouse staff of people who matched the report text to the ADT record and inserted cc's in the proper fields. The ADT people wouldn't have had to understand any medical jargon; the job would have been essentially clerical. This would have ensured that the patient's name was exposed to as few people as possible, and MTs could float around to as many accounts as necessary without any changes in format. If the dictator was using a cell phone or couldn't be understood, the MT would just type "reject" and send it on to the ADT people to let the hospital know.
Yeah, probably not practical, but whatever. The best-case scenario is that MTs are assigned primaries and gain familiarity with dictators in order to gain speed...
I've always felt that making allowances for individual doctors (Dr. Jones says "blue," but this should always be transcribed as "green." Dr. Smith wants Veress to be typed as Verres, even if it's wrong) was a huge mistake. MTSO salespeople have always let medical records directors pick and choose account specifics based on whim, as well as TAT and amount of penalty for being out of TAT. Why the heck didn't salespeople enforce a standard? "We're delighted that you awarded us this contract, and here's the format we use for all our clients without exception; this is how we're able to offer you some savings. One size fits all. This ensures uniformity and allows us to move our MTs on or off your account as the volume of dictation varies."
Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
 |
|
 |
|
