A few insights... - sm Posted: Jun 28th, 2017 - 4:26 am In Reply to: Can somene tell me is Editscript difficult to learn or Escription. I am - PAMT
1. EditScript is pretty straightforward to learn.
2. How much work there is to do with regard to the ADT differs from one account to another. I work for two different accounts. For one of them I rarely have to do anything other than click to confirm that the ADT is correct. Occasionally the doc keys in the wrong dictator ID or worktype code but you just click in the box and start typing the first few letters of his last name or the work type (example: "J-o-h-" for Johnson or "C-o-n-" for Consult) and the list moves to that part of the list for a quick selection so you don't even have to type it all. If the patient info is wrong, it's a bit more involved to correct but not much.
For the other client, we have to do the "confirm" thing above, plus most worktypes require filling in one or more bits of information to the ADT screen like the date of service, check the correct encounter, and with ops we have to enter the name of assistant and anesthesiologist. On the other hand, we're not required to type this info into the report itself, whereas with the other account we do. In other words, it's sort of a wash between the two accounts. One you type the info into the report, like surgeon, assistant, date of operation etc, but not into the ADT, and the other you fill that stuff into the ADT section but not in the report itself.
Hope this makes sense!
3. Like another poster, I use very few of the many keyboard shortcuts available - for me the mouse is faster. I use maybe less than 10 shortcuts. I'm consistently at or above 400 lph (hit 525 once when all the stars were aligned!) and I haven't identified any other shortcuts that would improve that.
4. Where I do get frustrated is with the physician database - which again is a client-specific matter. In particular, the specialty information is often either missing, inaccurate or useless. With a huge physician population, I use specialty info to help find or differentiate a name I don't recognize and it doesn't help when the field is blank, when it shows "cardiology" instead of "anesthesiology" or when it's so generic that it's useless - as with showing "internal medicine" instead of "cardiology", "endocrinology", "neurology", "rheumatology", "hematology", etc. Of course these ARE all subspecialties of "internal medicine" but that's so broad that it's useless to me. I have complained about the rotten doc database several times to no avail, of course. In many cases, I've used Google more successfully to find a doc or to verify the specialty, etc.
To be fair, the physician DB issue isn't unique to this system. From my experience it seems the people in hospitals who are responsible for keeping these databases up to date, whether they work in the medical staff office or medical records, just don't take the matter of completeness and accuracy very seriously, no matter what system is used.
The reason is simple: This is not the database that these people use THEMSELVES in their daily work. It's a separate database that's used just for transcription, so they could give a rat's butt whether the information in it is current, is accurate, or is complete. It doesn't affect them or their work at all.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
