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

Remote computer monitoring? - Workin

Posted: Jan 28, 2010

My company just said they are going to have us install Remote Computer Monitoring and Management onto our computers for "HIPAA" and to make sure we are productive. Does this allow them to monitor only while we are working or all of the time? The company does not supply computers, these are our personal ones.

REMOTE MONIORING-WRONG! - old timer

[ In Reply To ..]
Give me a break!!!! Can't they tell you are productive by your line count. I think that is just wrong.... I'd start looking for another job. By their watching you how is that going to make you any more productive....

Actually they are crossing the line - onemore

[ In Reply To ..]
Actually they are crossing the line if you are an independent contractor. They cannot tell you when or how to do your work. They can tell you they need a certain amount of production a day and tell you they want it done between your set schedule. I would get out ASAP. This is YOUR computer, not theirs. Good luck!

I would not allow it on my personal computer - Big Brother anyone?

[ In Reply To ..]
Company supplied machine, maybe. My own personal computer? Not a chance.

Its wrong even on a company machine. Might as well - have a microchip implanted in your neck

[ In Reply To ..]
that lets them know every time you get up from your chair, every time you pee, and how much came out when you did.

Itself Violation of HIPAA - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Just want to let you know even watching the screen of your computer is HIPAA violation and you are talking of remote monitoring on your system. Are you really serious? No WAY!

http://www.photodon.com/privacy01.htm

Computer monitoring (while you are trying to work) - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, I hate to tell you, but that is part of a big problem that has been going on for several years. And the laughable part of the whole thing (at least from my perspective and experience) is that the people in the office, who are doing the constant monitoring, thought that we could not tell that someone else was on our system. What they don't understand is that when someone is monitoring, which is usually constantly (I am assuming because they really don't have anything else to do or because they are just paranoid in thinking that something is or is not going on), anyway . . . the worker (MT) can tell AND . . . it is like there are two people trying to work on the very same connection and it slows you down considerably, not to mention that this is more than likely part of the "disconnection/Internet/computer" issues. Let's face it, "PC Anywhere" or anything like it is antiquated and the MT's computer and ISP is meant for only that computer and user. The ISP can also tell that someone else is "monitoring" that computer and it doesn't make them very happy either -- they have security reasons as well.

Is the monitoring only while you are working or ALL of the time? - Workin

[ In Reply To ..]
In the information, it even says they can copy and transfer files from my computer, even MP3 files.

Computer monitoring (while you are working) - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
I am no longer an MT; however, this "monitoring" has been going on for years AND it is noticeable, disturbing, interfering, degrading, and it pretty much sends the message that the MT is not doing what they are supposed to do. I actually believe that the "monitoring" is really only done to give the office staff something to do, it is a "bonding" issue with the in-house staff, and it is a control issue no doubt.

If you are being monitoring, your computer is being used as if two people are on it at the same time, and YES anything that you can do the monitor can do as well and that means copy and transfer files or whatever. The "monitor" is a live user on your computer just as you are. No matter what they say, i.e. it is only as a monitor, they have access to your system same as if you were directly connected to them you would have access to whatever they had on their system. These things can be locked so that whichever user happens to be using files or whatever, another user cannot access it at the same time, which is how it should be.

Like I said, Internet service providers are well aware and can tell how many users are on each connection -- they can see this as an administrator -- and it doesn't make them happy campers -- they have security issues too. Think about what it is like when someone "hijacks" a wireless Wi-Fi connection, meaning they are on someone else's Internet connection, which is not their own -- same thing. The owner of this ISP connection will be able to tell that their connection is slow -- why, because there are two people on it! :-)

To MT who knows - Workin

[ In Reply To ..]
So, when I am off of work, can I turn the thing off or anything? Like, if I want to check out my bank account info or other personal things OUTSIDE of work, can they see all of that or can you disable it?

Monitoring - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
I can't answer that question for you. All I know is that I WOULD NOT let a company download anything to my own PC, which I learned the hard way. After I was not working for this company and did not have to connect to their network anymore, I tried to delete anything that I thought would be an issue, and I gave the Windows XP away to someone who would never connect to their network and have a COMPLETELY different IP address, and I bought a new computer.

I can't answer your question. All I know is what I experienced, which was total bullsh_t. I WOULD NOT LET ANY TRANSCRIPTION COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT DOWNLOAD ANYTHING THAT I SUPPOSEDLY NEEDED, I.E. a web client, to my own computer. Another company, who can be trusted in another line of work, well that is different, but definitely nothing that has to do with MT -- that's just my take -- decide for yourself.

That is yet another HUGE reason why MT should - not be done in foreign companies.

[ In Reply To ..]
Lord only knows who, in India, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, China, etc., is able to "monitor" our computers remotely. Sounds like a hacker's or ID-thief's dream-come-true.

My company"s recent "upgrades" have slowed us down - more each time they do it. So I"ve

[ In Reply To ..]
been more than just a little suspicious that constant monitoring is what is going on. I really wouldn't put it past them to monitor the keystrokes used to post on this forum, and others, not to mention Facebook and Twitter. But ya know what? This is America, and freedom of speech is one of the few things we still have left. I will NOT let an employer, no matter how well they pay me, dictate what I can say, who I can associate with, what web sites I can visit, etc. And let's face it - most of our companies don't really pay us enough to stay, let alone be bullied and stalked. Yes, STALKED. Because that's what it is. Let my company pull any of that cr@p with me, and I'll be lookin for a way to sue their behinds.

As it is, all our techs are in INDIA. I never ask them for advice because they hook into your computer and start looking at all your files. Not too far afield from electronic rape.

I would tell them (sm) - Long time MT

[ In Reply To ..]
When pigs fly! If they want to provide the computer, then fine, I have no problem with that; but just think about all the personal data that is on your personal computer. No way would I allow that.

If I paid for the computer, then I say what does or - does not go on my drive. NOT the MTSO!

[ In Reply To ..]
We have as much right to personal privacy as the patients whose records we're typing.

Just say no ... way - mt no way

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't think so. I would never allow someone to do that.

You transcribe and your lines show you are productive.

There is no way I would allow someone to monitor me in that way; I'd quit first. Don't do it.

Remote Monitoring - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
As obnoxious as "remote monitoring" might be, a few facts might help.

First, there are many types of "monitoring applications", and these vary widely in the degree of "intrusiveness" involved. For instance, there is software that can be deployed on a server that will do nothing more than check the security configuration of your computer to make sure the firewall is properly configured, the latest Windows patches have been installed, encryption is running, etc. If everything is okay, you're allowed to access the server and nothing more is involved in the way of monitoring.

At the other end of the spectrum, there's software that logs all keystrokes, records user activity (what applications you use and even for how long, what websites you visit), allows remote access to your files and applications like Outlook, shows the current state of your screen, etc.

If there are any MTSO's reading this, I hope you'll take a piece of advice from someone who's involved in computer security. If you do not own the computer being monitored, you MUST NOT USE monitoring software that gives you the degree of access described in the last paragraph. Why? (1) Because the risk of running afoul of federal - and possibly state - computer privacy laws (both criminal and civil) using such software is so great that no one in their right mind would risk it. Check with company counsel if you doubt what I'm saying. And (2) if there is an issue involving employee discipline that involves computer activity, you'll have a real problem showing that YOU didn't access the forbidden website, send the nasty email, post company information on a blog, disable the firewall, or compromise the PHI on the system. With such software, you are, in effect, a phantom "user" and you're exposing yourself to virtually the same accusations that might be lodged against the employee.

Instead, monitor using the principle of the "minimum necessary". Remember, servers keep log files of user activity ON YOUR SERVER, which record most of what's relevant for your legitimate purposes. Learn to configure logging on your servers to capture the information you need, learn how to read the log files, and then do so. Restrict your monitoring activities to client security configuration and don't go near the user's email, IM messages, Internet Explorer history, etc.

Yes, I know that this means you can't monitor what ultimately happens to PHI on the MT's personally-owned computer. This is the price you pay for choosing not to own the MT's work computer and passing that cost along to the MT - i.e., SEVERE restrictions on what you may LEGALLY monitor. You'll have to implement server-side protective measures instead, if you can, and trust to policies and procedures.

As to one other matter that's been mentioned - i.e., the ISP knowing anything about monitoring, or caring if they did. Monitoring activity of the sort we're talking about does not involve anyone "accessing your ISP account" (which the ISP might care about), and the monitoring traffic just looks like any other Internet traffic. Monitoring software is simply software that sends certain kinds of information over an Internet connection that's no different from any other connection. An incoming packet containing a command looks just like an incoming packet containing any other text data. Outgoing packets that upload a picture of your screen to the remote site look just like the packets that would be created if you were uploading a picture to your Facebook account. At best, the ISP might see more activity on your account if they track such things, but that's merely a bandwidth issue.

P.S. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I should have mentioned another caveat for the MTSO reading this thread. Don't imagine that you can circumvent the privacy laws by imposing a "monitoring policy" on your employees that forces them to "permit" any degree of monitoring that a court would find to be impermissively intrusive, egregious or outrageous - which are terms they like to use! An employee's signature on a policy won't save you if the policy itself is indefensible. Or, in other words, you can't impose overreaching policies - especially as a condition of an employee keeping her job.

There is analagous case law, for instance, with respect to monitoring employee telephone conversations that establishes the rule that an employer must cease monitoring at the moment it becomes clear that the phone call is not a business call. The problem is, you can't do this so easily with computer monitoring situations. If you improperly gain access to a personal email, an IM message, a blog posting, etc., the damage cannot be mitigated as you can by hanging up the phone on a personal call. That information has been transferred to your system in one form or another, and "I stopped reading it when I became aware it was personal" won't cut the mustard in most courts, nor would a policy that "permitted" you to listen in on those personal calls.

Certainly, you can establish certain policies, but even "business necessity" by appealing to the HIPAA security rule will only take you so far when it comes to computers owned by employees. Seek professional advice in these areas - and make sure counsel is competent in this area of law, as many aren't. It's filled with traps that can land you in hot water and even sink your business.

Remote monitoring not just MTSO - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
This ridiculous remote monitoring is not unique to MTSO organizations alone and the practice is condoned and has been done at other healthcare organizations. As far as "packets" are concerned, well I am here to tell you that the ISP does know that more activity is on the account and an IP address is the same kind of identifier as your home address. As far as "bandwidth issue," well, do they really believe that piggybacking onto someone else's bandwidth at the same time the other person is working isn't going to affect that MT's performance? There is a lot of high-and-mighty thinking going on out there that basically isn't really thought about at all.

I think that the most important question for an organization to ask is, "Did I hire a child or did I hire an adult?" If the organization insists on interruptive, remote monitoring, well then I would have to say that they hired a child. Would the organization disrespect an in-house employee in the same manner? It really doesn't matter who owns the computer.

We're talking about several - different issues here...

[ In Reply To ..]
First, the IP address doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Monitoring of the sort we're talking about doesn't "piggyback" (for instance, "spoofing" the user's IP address). It's not a "man-in-the-middle" attack or anything of that sort either. It's merely software (usually, client-server) that's communicating between two sytems like any other Internet activity does. As I pointed out, this might increase the amount of traffic that the ISP sees, but even that isn't certain because monitoring software can be very efficient. For instance, it can send a summary of user activity once a day that takes less bandwidth than watching a YouTube video. If it's "real-time" monitoring, that would be different, of course, but there are many perfectly legitimate applications that take similar bandwidth, such as GoToMyPC, which offers a service allowing you to control your home PC from the office, for example, so the ISP isn't going to pay attention to this unless you're on a bandwidth budget and exceed that.

As for the "child/adult" issue, you seem to live in a very interesting binary world. Unfortunately, real life isn't quite that simple. Completely aside from the reality that there's a little bit of child and adult in everyone, there are the facts that we know about computer threats.

By far, the greatest number of adverse incidents related to computer abuse, privacy breaches, etc. involve employees. That "adult" employee you hired last year becomes disgruntled over some perceived mistreatment. Or, that "adult" employee does something harmful in a careless moment, or perhaps because of simple ignorance, misunderstanding instructions, etc. Perhaps they don't even realize that they've accessed a site that loaded a virus onto their computer, and it's too new for their AV software to catch it. All of these things and more make your "child/adult" argument implausible and impractical.

You seem to be saying that the MTSO should be hiring people who can be trusted, but as I've noted above, a person's character might not even come into the issue regarding certain kinds of adverse events. A mistake, or an unawareness of the presence of a virus, etc., has nothing to do with the employee's character.

Moreover, trust isn't enough. When it comes to discharging your company's obligations with respect to information privacy, it won't be good enough to tell the court that you "trusted" your people. You might hire the 12 apostles, but you'd better be able to show that you did more than trust them. The principle isn't "Trust!". It's "Trust, but Verify!". You cannot establish policies if you don't enforce them (courts consider them abandoned if not enforced), and you can't enforce them if you can't verify the conduct that the policy prohibits, now can you?

And in that vein (the verification aspects of corporate compliance), yes, it certainly does matter who owns the computer when it comes to what kinds of monitoring activity you can do, establishing "acceptable use" policies and a host of other issues.

Network administration, security, incident response forensics, etc. are what I do for a living. My training includes the many federal laws from Sarbanes-Oxley to HIPAA and the HITECH changes, as well as the technologies involved in computer/network security and I do try to provide accurate information when talking about subjects within my own area of expertise. I won't comment on other things I know nothing about.

The in-office staff . . . - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, thank you for all of your insight. It was appreciated greatly; however, I will say from experience that although the textbook model you described is ideal, that is not how it is handled. I have worked in different industries and mistakenly took an at-home MT job not knowing how abusive this employment can actually be. I know for a fact that the ISP does not like or appreciate any type of monitoring business that takes up user bandwidth. They ISP representative is aware (and I have discussed this with them in the past) that someone else is on the system, which I knew as well; it was painfully obvious. I was slammed by my employer both using my own PC and work's PC; didn't matter which computer that I was using it was done either way.

I appreciate your training in network security; however, I also know for a fact that you cannot assume that the user (MT) is sending out bogus emails to other users, visiting websites that contain viruses, or other questionable activities. I have never in my life had a more terrible time with a computer as a user than when I had to connect to my employer's network, both using my own PC and their PC -- it was ridiculous. The things that disappeared from and what I found on my own PC was unbelievable -- and I had a new Windows XP PC. I do know that when I did not have to connect to their network anymore that my problems were solved and I never again in my life experienced such ridiculous, outrageous happenings than when I was working for this company.

I respect those of you who make a decision to take computer security and make it your living; however, the paranoia from some individuals in that field has to stop. It should never be assumed that a "disgruntled employee" would do such a thing. I can tell you that I have never worked with such a dysfunctional department that was run by people who had no clue what was really going on, from their end or otherwise, and it made it very, very difficult and unbelievable to work in; however, I would NEVER even consider targeting someone's computer network in revenge. As a matter of fact, I really don't revenge on anyone -- it is a waste of my time.

I hope that in the future computer security issues can be handled in such a manner as to not disturb the "bandwidth" or work performance of anyone. If someone's paycheck or performance is not measured by "how many lines they do," this is not an issue; however, if it is, something better should be done for computer security. Remote individual workers should be respected the same as in-house workers, which I believe that they are not.

Security - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
We're still conflating a number of issues.

1. It's not a "textbook" model of security; it's a standards-based model that also carries the weight of law where sensitive private information is involved (finance, healthcare, etc.). In other words, it isn't about "pie-in-the-sky" theory; it's about compliance, and it's not optional.

2. No one is "assuming" that an employee IS doing anything, or that her computer HAS BEEN hacked by someone else, or infected with an unsuspected virus, worm or trojan, but it's simply the height of folly to assume that these things could never happen. You do have locks on your door, don't you? You don't have them because you assume your home will be broken into, but as a prudent precaution against a very realistic possibility that this COULD happen.

Or take a different example. Does a prudent company require employees to submit original receipts for meals, etc. with their expense reports? Of course they do! Why not just let people submit the expense reports without receipts? Because they "assume" that employees ARE lying about their expenses? Of course not. They do it because anyone with half a brain knows that this sort of thing does happen, and they also know that without controls like this they are simply INVITING such behavior. An internal auditor who suggested that controls should be eliminated "because we have to trust our people" would be fired before she got the words out of her mouth - and rightly so. It's not "trust" - it's "trust, but verify".

3. Respectfully, you are simply mistaken about ISP's and traffic related to monitoring, so I won't belabor that point further.

4. Please - this ISN"T about Aretha Franklin or "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" for the remote employee. You think people "in the office" aren't "monitored"?? Of course they are! They're being "monitored" from the time they hit the door to the time they leave. All the supervisor has to do is glance up from her desk and see that someone came in late, isn't working, took 10 minutes extra for lunch, etc. She knows when someone is talking and distracting others. She knows if they're being interrupted by personal phone calls...and of course she knows how much each person produces. Do you think she'd know if they broke out a little portable TV and watched "Days of our Lives" instead of working?? The truth is, people in the office are CONSTANTLY being "monitored". The only difference is that they're being monitored visually rather than electronically because they're right there in plain sight of the supervisor! Remote monitoring is really nothing more or less than extending this very legitimate oversight out to the "desk" where the remote MT is working.

(The word "supervise", by the way, literally means "to oversee".)

That being said, as I've also stated, there are constraints on what form this monitoring can take when the system being monitored isn't owned by the company. But these cautions have to do with the risk of overreaching into forbidden private territory. They have nothing to do with the legitimacy of, or the need for, monitoring itself.

Remote monitoring - MT who knows

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, first of all, I have enjoyed this lively conversation with you, really. :-)

I am not the "typical" MT and am well aware of the requirements imposed on business to provide verification, etc. People (businesses) have been "monitoring" employees or really anyone in general at work since the beginning of time; that concept is nothing new, but I think has gotten a bit out of control. The reason that I think it has gotten a bit out of control is the fact that there seems to be no consideration as to how it affects the work performance of a remote employee, especially if their pay and performance is production based and certain requirements must be met for the job. From my experience, which I was completely unaware of until I experienced it, was the fact that working as an MT and working in the office seems to have a "us and them" mentality. Every MT seemed stereotyped into an "MT" category, which was they don't want to leave the house, they work in their pajamas, they watch TV and do other work when they are supposed to be working, and all other kinds of various bogus beliefs. I will say, though, that it also is my experience that many MTs may fit into this stereotype (not me, however), and it was somewhat disturbing to me when I realized that much of the healthcare industry has this type of perspective stereotype about individuals who work as MTs. With that said, I in no way expect not to be monitored; I have always worked in an office (which I prefer -- another career actually :-) ) and, of course, a person is monitored. A person is hired for a job and should do that job honestly and to their best ability; however, when working as a remote MT I was thrown into the "remote MT" category stereotype.

I know the definition and extended meaning of the word "supervise: -- I am a college graduate from a major university.

I think that the IT security business (necessary business) needs to take a look (outside of the box) and try to figure out a better way to do things (monitor remotely) so as not to interfere with required work performance of the MT. Because paranoia runs deep and if an office-staff employee has a misbelief that a remote employee is doing this or doing that when in fact that employee is not, the excessive monitoring just to see what that person is doing WILL hinder the work performance unjustly and cause serious problems both in performance, communication, trust, and relationships at work, and it will pretty much cause an environmental-stress situation in that person which would not otherwise happen. Just remember what you may be suspecting the person on the other end (remote MT) of doing, may be completely off base -- also, try not to have an "out of sight out of mind" philosophy; it does happen.

If you can figure out a way (outside of the box) to do remote monitoring without infringing on work performance (and major bandwidth issues), you could have a patent and be a rich man or woman! :-)

I've been trying to get out of MT for years, but that "remote MT" stereotype runs deep and it has been very difficult.

End of conversation. End of MT'ing. Back to real-world careers and business.

I understand... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Certainly, "monitoring" of either kind (in-person/visual or remote/electronic) can be overly intrusive, even to the point of being insulting and repressive. Also, I agree that monitoring (again, of either kind) can actually be counterproductive and get in the way of people doing their work.

If you read all my posts in this thread, you might remember that I recommended that MTSO's should focus on the information provided by the event and security logs that all servers maintain rather than on "real-time" monitoring of remote systems, and also to use "system security profile" monitoring, which simply checks the remote system at the start of a session to make sure it's configured properly for security - i.e., the firewall is running, encryption is working, the latest Windows patches applied, etc. After it checks these things, it grants the user access to the network and no further monitoring is done.

Both of these suggestions, together with the "normal" oversight that's always done regarding required production minimums, quality, scheduling, etc., together with some other things like proper hiring practices (do the background!), DEALING with the unhappy employee's issues instead of ignoring them, appropriate policies, training employees in security issues, etc. can all contribute to the security posture in ways that are much less negative than playing "Big Brother" with intrusive electronic monitoring. Plus, as a company, you'll be minimizing the possibilities of violating some VERY serious laws regarding the employee's "reasonable expectations of privacy".

I don't support overly-intrusive monitoring, which is inadvisable on many different levels. However, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines make it very clear that IF a company gets into trouble over stolen/disclosed/hacked PHI, it will go MUCH worse for them if they can't show that they took REASONABLE precautions to protect that information from improper disclosure, theft or abuse. Whether you're talking about financial information, health information, or even personal information that's held in government repositories, the name of the game is compliance, and compliance does not afford you the luxury of closing your eyes to the possibility of bad things happening to the information with which you've been entrusted.

Thanks for the interesting chat!

P.S. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Incidentally, one thing that can be done and which obviates most of the concerns about bad things happening to PHI that's pushed out to remote systems is not to do it in the first place. It's child's play to substitute a "reidentification code" for the demographics. This code could even embed the age and gender so that the MT can confirm that the dictation (most likely) pertains to this patient (and if there are still questions along those lines the report goes into the "hold" queue for resolution in the office).

So if this is a 49-year-old female the reidentification code might be 49F5001X7. When the report is transmitted, it is automatically rejoined with the full demographic information before transmittal to the client and there's nothing on the remote system that would cause problems.

(Coding this way would actually result in a "limited data set", not a completely scrubbed record, but limited data sets are obviously much less problematic than full demographics.

One thing that would strengthen this methodology is training physicians NOT to include the patient's name, place of employment, relatives' names and phone numbers, etc. in the body of the report. None of this kind of thing should ever be dictated, because it means that whenever the client needs to use these records for legitimate research, or other purposes outside the scope of TPO (treatment-payment-operations), each and every record must be checked in its entirety for the possibility that it contains identifying information within the report, instead of just removing the report headers programmatically.

I'm in favor of MTSOs implementing a reidentification code. It's not a complex programming problem by any means, and it would go a very long way to eliminate concerns about stolen computers and all the other bad stuff that can happen to the PHI on remote systems.

Similar Messages:

Jun 24, 2010

I realize we work on production and that we're not making money when our fingers aren't moving, but I don't think there are too many jobs where you're actually actively working for the entire 8-hour shift. There's always downtime. I understand it being a problem if people aren't producing a reasonable amount of work during their shift, but come on! Being chastised for stepping away from the keyboard for a bathroom break or to grab a cup of coffee i ...

May 07, 2012

Well, I will not be reading these emails calculating how much time we are working and "goofing off." They will only make me less motivated and quite frankly angry. I am not a robot, there are times after a long difficult report that I have to step away from the computer to give my brain a few minute break. As long as I do the required long count and then some, I will not concern myself with this emails. ...

Jun 30, 2012

About this monitoring crap. Why aren't the docs monitored? Why do we have to change our ways and they don't have to. On ASR there are a couple of docs who dictate in the "wrong order" and I have to move everything around, cut and paste, do the caps thing, etc. Almost all of them dictate in the order of the standard headers. Some of these dictators change their mind 2-3 times in the same sentence not to mention they change their mind and you do not kno ...

May 26, 2013

Got a phone call yesterday from TL questioning my being short on my time card. I had sent in OOW email etc and followed protocol as on that prior Saturday had run out of work which is typical for Saturdays with who I type for, but am still being questioned and was told to take PTO Time to make my 40 hours week. Said that they were going over making sure everyone was working their assigned schedule. ...

Sep 18, 2013

I was put on monitoring for "quality." Supposedly my quality was under 99%. Has anyone else had to do this? how long? It's been a week now but I haven't heard not one word, no kind of feedback, no email, nothing. ...

Dec 01, 2010

Do they still monitor keystrokes and mouseclicks? I.e., if I am in Google...or checking AOL email, are those keystrokes counted? I do think giving real feedback on how lph is good, but I agree...it is creepy. And what about breaks? I have always just stayed in a job and taken a 20 min break and then come back. Should we not do that? It has never been really clear. ...

May 17, 2011

Just thought I'd let you know that I received an email from Sue telling me that people are telling her to come to this site to see what people are saying. She said that she values the MTs, even though they fall short (her words), and that she would like to discuss this with me. Well, I'm not going to discuss anything with her as then my identity will be know, which will probably get me fired. I just thought I'd let everyone from Transcend know they are watching, ...

Jul 03, 2013

I do not hear an "S" though - just sounds like "moe" Thank you ...

Apr 21, 2011

This is my first time posting, but I hope someone can help me. Regarding precordial doppler monitoring system, I am not sure what to capitalize, if anything. Thanks in advance! ...

Aug 06, 2013

I'm doing a report for an epidural steroid injection for a doctor who speaks extremely fast. I've done reports for him in the past but can't seem to find my sample reports for him - they seem to have disappeared into thin air! I really don't want to have to send it to QA. I'm hoping someone can help. He says: "A timeout was performed. _____ monitoring _____ blood pressure and pulse oximetry were placed." Any ideas?&nb ...

Sep 19, 2012

x ...

Feb 04, 2010

I read that Medmedx supplies computers but you can only have Cable or DSL connection. I live in an area where I cannot get cable or DSL. I have a wireless connection. My question is, do they allow you to use our own computers? Thanks for your time and have a great day? ...

Jul 18, 2011

The reason I ask this question is for my internet I have a USB modem. Do the computers supplied by Q have any extra USB ports so I can plug my Verizon in there? Thanks! ...

Aug 04, 2011

I am in the process of transitioning jobs and will be going from a company-provided computer to my own. Any suggestions on what software programs are needed, virus protection, word expanders, line counting, and hardware like foot pedal? The hospital I am looking into will be using Microsoft Word. Any comments on whether this is a good program or not to transcribe on? Any tips? I have been with the same company for 15 years, so have been out of the loop and need ...

Jun 17, 2010

Hi. I am an RHIT, 17 years coding experience. Recently relocated to a remote community and now searching for a remote coding position. So many "companies'.......so overwhelming. Can anyone point me to a good reliable list of companies that hire remote coders? Any advice? ...

Dec 02, 2010

Are there any companies out there that hire specifically for remote coders. I saw a few and applied but have never heard back. I do have my CPC but I don't know if they are looking for anything in particular. I also have almost 18 years of billing/coding experience. Maybe the jobs are just rare. ...

Mar 31, 2011

Anybody having a lack of QA work? ...

Dec 01, 2012

I recently obtained my Certificate from a community college for Medical Transcription/Coding. I also work full time at our county mental health clinic, scheduling appointments for patients, answering telephones and transcribing reports for 3 psychiatrists (2 speaking in broken Indian dialect). I have submitted many resumes online to all types of transcription agencies and physician's offices. Can anyone tell me how long it takes to get a job as a remote transcriptionist and if you have any ...

Mar 28, 2013

I'm curious how many of you graduated from your medical coding/billing course and found a job to work remotely? I'm currently a transcriptionist looking to enroll in a coding/billing course, but will not be able to work onsite to gain experience that most of these companies are wanting. I've been doing some research and most of them want you to have 3 years onsite experience. I will need something remotely after graduation. I thought I would check here and ...

Jun 24, 2013

We all know the frustration in dictation where they don't use a pause button, how our salaries dwindle to nothing as a result. I noted an ad on the Job Seeker's Board to train to become a "remote scribe" for .07 to .08 CPL. Doesn't it seem this would also dwindle to nothing as it seems there would be far more waiting for data to enter and would take forever to complete a line if you are working in real time. Anyone have any info on how this would work? ...

Jan 17, 2014

Is anyone willing to share their pay rate per chart for outpatient remote contract coding? I am also curious if you ever get an increase in your pay rate or is this renegotiated in your contract. ...

May 31, 2014

...qualify for this job? I just have experience with medical terminology, working in Radiology with a little customer service and phone etiquette skills and ability to multitask. The rest, not so much. Wonder what is the hourly rate of pay. ...

Jul 09, 2014

https://www.mrinetwork.jobs/ats/js_job_details.php?reqid=105450 I can't post the link below because it has https instead of http. ...

Jun 07, 2012

Does anyone know what remote coders are getting paid, i.e. how much per report. ...

Jun 07, 2012

Does anyone know what remote coders are getting paid, i.e. how much per report. I am an IC looking for coding position at home. ...

Jul 15, 2013

Any remote coders out there or is this a farce like the ads saying you can make $40,000 a year from home as an MT?? ...

Aug 20, 2013

I was browsing through the jobs board, and saw that Inscribe is hiring MTs and remote scribes. What is the difference? It says remote scribes input directly into EMR. Does anybody know anything about this? I know what scribes do in hospitals but I have never heard of a remote scribe and would think it is basically the same thing as an MT. ...

Jan 31, 2015

I currently have a small IC MT account that I plan to support myself on while I get through coding school. This IC account is all done via encrypted email and can be done from anywhere I can get a wifi connection. I have worked on this job while visiting friends in Italy. It is a wonderful thing. My question is this: Are there opportunities for remote coders (maybe not in the beginning) than enable that freedom? I used to work remotely doing MT for a hospital ...

May 07, 2010

Has anyone ever heard of a company called Remote Medical Jobs? I've seen several medical transcriptionist job postings by this company over the past several months. ...

Mar 21, 2011

Do coders have a website like MTs have (mtstars.com) for finding remote jobs? If so, where is this website? Thanks ...