A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
We were just sent a list of how our team did on audits for February so far, listed by ID#. Out of around 50 workers, three of them had 7-8 reports audited (including me, which I passed at 99.8), two with 5 and two with 4. The rest had 3 and below reports audited. At first, I saw a bunch of 100% and thought wow, they're good. Then I saw that most of them only had 1 report audited, the rest had 2. Then I saw that many of those who failed only had one or two reports audited also.
Here's the thing, if out of my 8 reports they chose 2 of my good ones, I could have had 100%; however, if they chose the 2 that brought my score down, I would have failed. (One person failed having 2 minor errors on 1 report, and this very well could have been a huge report.)
My gripe is this. If you are going to send out the audit scores of your group, make sure they all have had about the same amount of reports audited. Otherwise, you are bringing the morale down of those employees who failed with a couple minor errors, which will most likely lead to more errors on their part. Also, those who have been audited 4 times more than nearly everyone else, are going to get paranoid and feel that they are being picked on.
I think they should send out audit reports of our lovely ILPs.
Remember the days when quality needed to be 98% and they took in consideration the length of the report?
Considering this company is being run into the ground, I think that some of our suits need to be audited.