A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

WebNu QA scores - anon

Posted: Jan 02, 2012

Just a head's up, new QA scores are being performed (to many of my friends also), with no warning, check your files and you will see a new one just performed. I have not had a score under 99.5% for 2 years, and had several 100%, but lo and behold, my new score (which will mean NO BONUS for the next QUARTER if I understand correctly) is 98.8%. Yea, right. It was done on all my secondary accounts, on the most difficult dictators, and I am looking for a new job.

Me 2 - me2alsoand

[ In Reply To ..]
I just got mine too...and yup, I got blindsided....Normally I'm in the mid-99s for the past 4 years, this time 97.2. They reviewed 9 jobs, only 2 from my main acct. Such BS! Some of them were wrong too, I think they had the India QAs do it...

me2 qa scores - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I just wonder if we are imagining this or if this is being done on purpose? It seems to me to be done on purpose to keep them from paying any bonuses, but that is of course my opinion, no idea how widespread it is. So far I know of 5 employees who always had 99+ scores in the past who have been dinged to death and thus are not getting a bonus. I would challenge anything you can find if it is wrong and you have proof! Mine were minor errors, but they were errors, so I am stuck with the score.

Are you former webmedx side? - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
Just wondering. I'm new at Webmedx and o thought their QA policy was great, but this was before all the changes. I was told it wasn't going to change, even though they raised it to 99%.

yes webmedx - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I have been at Wmx 4 years. The bonus used to be tied to production. There was a minimum QA score but it was not tied to the bonus. I always had good QA scores and loved the QA people. I don't think this is from our QA. They reviewed a LOT of reports, and picked the worst of the worst to review, on accounts I seldom type. All of this leads me to believe they were told to find enough errors in order to keep from passing out bonuses. Again, I could be wrong, but in 4 years my scores have always been above 99% until now. It doesn't sound bad until you see how they have performed the QA, and the reports and dictators they chose. Check your folder to see if you have new QA reports. In the past I used to get an e-mail but not this time.

Coincidence? Just before the merger was announced, - our division was informed that

[ In Reply To ..]
we would no longer have primary accounts but would be assigned from all accounts by priority. I thought this was done to drop our incomes so the balance sheet would look nice and spiffy, but now I'm thinking there was a second reason for it too--the drop in QA that often comes with less/unfamiliar dictators and accounts.

I also always exceeded 98% QA, often 99-100%, and always qualified for the higher production pay incentive tiers. Before the merger.

I do not believe this is coincidence at all because of the long-term pattern it continues. Well before Nuance, even, does anyone remember the last time even a small change, technical or otherwise, did NOT lead to a drop in income, now matter how competently you adjusted?

Hmmm, I was specifically told it would be the same QA personnel and policies - Re-thinking my decision

[ In Reply To ..]
What to do..what to do!! I Have worked for companies before that nitpick you to death over stupid stuff. I'm not willing to do that again, as that gives the QA Department control my future. There are errors, and then there Is subjective matter that all depends on how the person editing decides where there should be a comma, paragraph, or how they specifically interpret the BOS rules! We all know there are exceptions to everything, and I have worked for QA that just decides they want it a certain way!!!!

I'm not going there again!! I am a good MT that will not be tortured by a nitpitcky QA staff! I believe some phone calls will be made tomorrow!!

protest - too much

[ In Reply To ..]
On a random review, any report transcribed can be included, regardless of primary, secondary, etc. From what I understand, there is still a formal avenue open to you to challenge review scores when you can prove you were scored off incorrectly. Take advantage of that resource instead of spinning your wheels venting to people who can't assist you.

This is such a scam. Sure ANY report can be included. But - did they used to? I agree SM

[ In Reply To ..]
all should question EVERYTHING. Like said above, dont make this easy for them. If they have to spend extra time explaining all the errors, what they dont pay to you, they will have to pay to QA.

Question - challenge

[ In Reply To ..]
Did they used to include any report? Yes, they did. I have multiple reviews that include reports from my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even lower priority accounts. The way I figure it, I transcribed it so it is out there eligible for review.

So true...sm - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
Just so you know, QA also have same standards we must abide by when auditing that goes by JOB number NOT by MTs, so you are not being singled out. There are a lot of paranoid people on this board. Also, the 99% policy was instituted before Webmedx, so there are those who can and do obtain the bonus. I continue to believe the MTSOs have gotten smart and are weeding out the not so great MTs and shiners and complainers,, which is a good idea, and then we will see a change in pay for the better, though the GREAT MTs are the ones already making good money. My 2 cents!

whiners and complainers... - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Sure, edit by job#. They dont want to pay bonus to ANY, not - just some MTs. Go by #, all are at risk. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

you could always just get another job....sm - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
As stated before, there are many who achieve the bonus and are happy with nuance compared to the handful who choose to complain about something you can't change. I for one am glad to work for a STABLE company with many opportunities. Those of us who were with Focus can see the positives from the nuance buyout.

How do YOU know many achieve it? So far, NO posts - of others getting bonus. Have you? nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

maybe because they are actually WORKING vs complaining...sm - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
Plus, I do QA and we have many GREAT MTs who actually care about the work they put out......Check the archives!

Sad to think they are working 24/7 and never have time to - come here. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

why are you surprised, with all the whining and complaining...sm - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
on this board now, I rarely post too...just got tired of the nuance bashing..but I am done now, as you just don't have a clue! I feel sorry for you and hope you do something to better your position because truthfully, nuance is the future and you will miss out on a good company, as they have come a long way in this industry and I for one can't wait to see the good things yet to come. Good luck!

response to qamom - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I have rarely posted because of hysterical responses, etc., and agree with you there. However, this post started and the followup posters included in their remarks that they would like feedback, and they did not know if it was coincidence, bad luck, or intentional. A lot of MTs are very concerned about this new boss (Nuance) for many valid reasons. Multiple e-mails and subsequent corrections to e-mails, not giving us info about our pay rates for a very long time, very confusing info on I-9 forms, needing to send in this I-9 multiple times due to this, rising rates of insurance (I realize this is true of many companies), lowered pay rate, then dangling out hope of making up some of that pay with a bonus, only to see it disappear into thin air for 3 months before being eligible for another one!

I have said repeatedly in my posts, it is my opinion and I am not sure if it is valid (that QA is suddenly failing a lot of people). I have not criticized anyone with another opinion.

You, however, have jumped on this topic and immediately labeled anyone questioning Nuance's policies as "whiners, complainers, losers" and said we were not good MTs. You are the one who raised these posts to becoming volatile and name calling. I will not respond in kind, and believe you are trying to do your best at your job, just as we all are! I hope you are right about Nuance, truly I do! My gut though is telling me to find another profession, now that I am making about half of what I did 15 years ago! Best wishes to all.

you misunderstood...sm - qamomof5

[ In Reply To ..]
I did not call everyone whiners and complainers and NEVER in any of my posts losers. I agreed withe poster above me and stated QAs position and also stated how MTSOs are weeding out the not so great MTs, which is probably one of the reasons for the higher percentage AND that QA is not singling out the MTs. If you feel you fall into the not so great MT category, that is on you. My point was you cannot change it, so why complain. Challenge what you feel is unfair and change what needs to be changed. Again, as I stated before, we have some GREAT MTs and those who are not, but instead of complaining take the feedback (by the way, I ALWAYS provide feedback, but we ARE limited on what we can say...so ask your team lead because they CAN get you the feedback you want) and change...that is how you will get your bonus, which IS doable. Again, reread my posts please!

Majority - B

[ In Reply To ..]
The majority of MTs are at or above 99%. Have been for a long time, even with multiple quality policy changes over the years.

majority - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I was one of those who always had over 99%, all 4 years here, and my QA submission rate for blanks was 2.5%. I care about quality. I had QA comment to me about how good my work was. I have had many 100% QA as well. Hmmm, that was all until 1 week ago, my first time EVER to score below 99.3%, I went below the 99 mark. So, looking at those stats don't tell the whole story, do they? Oh, but I dare to speak up, so I am a whiner and complainer and loser! You are not going to stop the many MTs from posting reasonable remarks about this, I believe it is widespread from those I have spoken to (the sudden lowering of QA scores).

errors - me2alsoand

[ In Reply To ..]
It definitely feels like it was a purposeful thing. In the order they were in on my sheet, there were 99%, 100%, 98%, 100%, 100%, 89%. Wonder why they found a garbage report on my fourth acct, hardest dictator on there whom I've only done once or twice.

Other thing is, it used to be "if you have a question send a blank, better safe than sorry" but we are darned if we do and darned if we don't...send a blank and you lower your QC % so you might not qualify, send with "good guesses" and mess up a tad and you get dinged with QC score.

This system is complete and total crap. They want to advertise an incentive plan so they can get new hires and justify garbage pay, taking away the 2nd shift and 3rd shift hourly incentive etc, with the secret that you can't earn it.

Lastly with it switching to every 2 weeks you have a good week and a garbage week and they combine them so you may only get first or second level. Before it was possible to have a top level bonus one week and a mid level the second week, but now that would result it a much reduced overall bonus.

You didn't actually say "guess" - ??

[ In Reply To ..]
Really? Rather than stand up for yourself on a review, or for an issue with a dictator or account that causes more QA traffic, you're going to guess and risk a patient's safety? Unbelieveable!

And to think it all starts with MTSO policy of dunning for - not guessing. It is the MTSO SM

[ In Reply To ..]
that brings this on. Geesh, they want us to not guess but we have to pay if we do. How is that ANY choice for the MT supporting a family. If the MTSO didnt have this policy, MT wouldnt hesitate to send question to qa. So, the way I see it, any "guessing" is on the MTSO. Dont want us to "guess"? Dont dun me for sending to qa. I mean, get real. How is this NOT on the MTSO?

Reclassifying error values - anonymous

[ In Reply To ..]
The most recent QA newsletter thingy said that "Significant for" and "includes" dictation not transcribed as "XXX: Significant for xxx" and XXX: Includes xxx" will now count as 2 points on a QA review. Under webmedx, only the most grievous errors that compromised patient safety were counted as points.

I bet there are a lot of non-grievous errors that have inflated point values now.

My advice is to audit all your QA reviews and make them qualify the scores with documentation, either BOS, account specifics, standards or whatever. If it is a ploy to reduce the bonus payout don't make it easy for them.

Patient - ploy

[ In Reply To ..]
Obviously the thought of providing a more accurate healthcare document for a patient's doesn't come into the situation at all. Come on people, this isn't a grand conspiracy. Changes like this usually come about because prior policy didn't get the desired result of changed behavior for a better results. We live in an electronic age that demands reports be available ASAP so they must be as accurate as possible. There are actually living people relying on us. Instead of being on the defense and reactive, get engaged. Talk to your supervisors and provide ideas on how both the MTs and the patients can benefit. That will get someone's attention because it would provide a benefit to everyone.

They changed policy cause they didnt get the result of more - money for them, less for us. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

What's the big deal? If the doc says "includes" or "significant for" - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
then just type/edit it.

I implore you - readthisplease

[ In Reply To ..]
Please post your score. This place is anonymous, but so the suits don't figure out who is who how about we say below 98, 98 to 99, 99 plus. I want to see how many of us were audited and got a 99% versus the total number who aren't afraid to post here.
Maybe also post what your "normal" QA score used to be in the same general format. It would just be good to know if in fact they are doing this on purpose, or is it the minority who have fallen off a cliff as far as QA. Reply below this please, please, please and then some.

QA score - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Thank you for your post, I was the original poster and this is really what I wanted to know, is this a coincidence, or is it intentional. I have NEVER in 4 years had a score below 99%, which is why I was upset, especially since it means a whole 3 months with NO bonus. I do know of 5 others who had this happen, and they are very good, experienced MTs. Since we don't have a way to communicate for the most part, this would be a good place to find if this is random or not. I do NOT know if it was just bad luck for me (and my 5 friends) or not, but I can say that I have spiffed up my resume and am also looking outside the MT field.

'Nuther QA score - veryoldmt

[ In Reply To ..]
In the last year or so, I've made 2 100% scores, and the other two were 99-somethings. This time I made a 98.8, so won't be receiving bonus.

Corrected score - me2alsoand

[ In Reply To ..]
So I got a call from my boss today, the dispute I placed was reviewed and they turned two majors into minors, which upped my score to just a hair above 98%, so no disciplinary action at least, but no bonus either.

I guess for the next quarter I won't be worried about how much work I send to QA. I'll make sure they stay busy.

Similar Messages:

Apr 17, 2010

are T-scors for bone density with a "minus" number written T-score of -0.9 or minus 0.9. I have never had these before and just want to make sure. I would assume it is -0.9, but really want to make sure. Thanks so much. ...

Apr 09, 2015

how very funny ... have 5 jobs audited. the only ones with 100% are QC1 scores that DO NOT count toward the pay grid. a constant struggle for them to find a way to rip us off from the "great pay program". ...

Oct 15, 2009

I am a medical transcriptionist with over 15 years of experience, and I was fired today for low audit scores. I don't know why I am happy about this. I guess I am just relieved to get away from a company that picks apart their employees. What are they going to do when there is no one left? Ironically, I have worked in many big hospitals and while our reports were reviewed, this would have never happened working in a hospital. Does anyone know what is happening ...

Feb 04, 2010

When transcribing Apgar scores, which format is correct? Apgar score of 8 and 9 at one and five minutes, respectively or Apgar score of 8 and 9 at 1 and 5 minutes, respectively. I looked in the AAMT book and it says the write out the numbers for the minutes, but in the example they do not write out the numbers? ...

Jan 28, 2015

Is anyone out there having trouble maintaining 99% quality as I am? Jack Mom ...

Mar 25, 2015

Just got the email about lines being uploaded. States the QA scores are pulled from 2/27 to 3/6. I thought that was what it was last pay period as well. When will I get credit for the QA score I received on 3/10? Does anyone one how this bait and switch BS works? ...

Apr 02, 2015

Received an email stating I have to weeks to get my scores up. Not sure if this means I'll be fired. ...

Jun 09, 2015

FIESA 99.7, Webclock 98.5. Anyone else have this happen? Just noticed it today but already approved my timecard yesterday. ...

Oct 22, 2009

Does anybody know what their minimum QA scores are? They have postings for QA and MT but no mention it. I do good work but don't want to be nitpicked to death for a 99.9% score. Thx. ...

Apr 23, 2010

Hello All, I just received the results of my pre-employment testing. I have not had to "score" on a test in quite some time. One company asked me if I had been contacted because I scored 50% on the transcription side. What does that mean? The other company stated that I did not pass their test. It was graded by a regional recruiting manager and they are saying that I made several critical errors? Like what? Does anyone have any insight to the scoring of ...

Oct 14, 2013

I was wondering why Nuance requires a 99% score from their transcriptionists, but the companies that do their overflow advertise that they require 98%? How can they justify that? If you work for an overflow company, will they fire you if your score is above 98% but less than 99%? Just wondering what I would be getting into at one of these places. Thanks for anything you can share. ...

Dec 17, 2012

like most of us, a buyout. Loved the company I worked for. Then Nuance took over-changes being made-my scores started going down. Worked hard to get them back up-now I am getting marked for major errors that I KNOW I did not make-I feel 100% confident after all these years I would not be making these kinds of mistakes. Yet, in the last couple of months I have had more errors and some major errors that even a rookie MT would not be making, let a lone an experienced one. No, I am not perfect and n ...

Mar 23, 2013

The only scores that matter for your QA are the ones marked "Post-Audit." I don't sign or even look at the others. ...

Sep 30, 2013

I thought they were calculated weekly but my FIESA score for the period of 9/21-9/28 should have given me a bonus if that is true and it was the same as it was the week before, which was under 99. ...

Oct 16, 2013

I wonder how many MTs have resigned because of FIESA and being told they are "bad" when they have quality scores averaging 98-99%? ...

Feb 14, 2015

when should I expect the postaudit score to be posted in FIESA for the week prior (in this case 1/31 to 2/7)? ...

Jun 10, 2010

:) ...

Mar 01, 2012

I need help. Doc says, and this is MY spelling guess, MOSES/DISCUS scores. Any ideas? Cat ...

Sep 13, 2013

Just curious about what type of Fiesa scores people are getting? Anyone received any type of formal warning for their scores? Just trying to figure out how important Fiesa really is to the whole sceme of things. ...

Mar 20, 2014

x ...

Jul 14, 2014

Hi! I was hoping for a little input. I have been with Mmodal/Medquist/Spheris since 2005. They have the new quality standards which seem to be out of reach for me. They want us to be at an unreasonable 99.7. Even today, received last week's audit scores and one was 100% the other at 98.75. I am on my 3rd corrective action for this and know I am at close to the end of my rope. I actually would like to go back to school. Has anyone been unintentionall ...

Jan 27, 2015

Last week, I had a great QA score. I only had a couple of reports sent to QC - none of which were problematic. However, today, I had a horrible ESL report with multiple blanks. I had to send it to QC. They not only filled in the blanks, but graded me on it -- a whopping 96.2. UGH! Is that going to be counted among my post audit score for my pay rate?? ...

Mar 01, 2015

The only thing that matters is the number of these you turn in in the first place. Take what useful correction from those, if there is any at all, and let the rest of it roll off. Do not stress out over these or attempt to reverse a QC score. As a matter of policy, they will never reverse anything on these, because the percentage score on them is meaningless. Only thing that matters is the number of them you turn in to begin with. Cutting down the number you submit is the only way to escape the ...

Dec 12, 2013

Thank you, I really need a job soon! qq ...

Mar 22, 2013

I want to print out just in case I need proof. Anyone have a website or anywhere on the internet where it states that what their audit scores are for employment? ...