Yeah, we're still supposed to "Review/xx" the QC ones too - if under whatever percent it is.

Review of FIESA - anon

Same thing here.... - mt2

Not everyone is having post audits.... - melady

One post-audit in 2 months? - CrankyMT

CrankyMT: Are you saying that the less you - are audited the SM

Because it's an average of scores - Sm

Luckily, that's not true (though it is some places, but not at Nuance). - sm

[Reposting my old post]:

Speaking of errors and shorter reports, though, the length of the report is actually really moot, since the overall QA score is based on deductions from *total lines* for the quarter, I was informed by my TSM. Example: You have 4000 lines audited and 20 error points in the quarter, dividing the 3980 result by the 4000 total equals a 99.5% QA score.  [I have double-checked this against my own scores, and it's true.]

So this having to mark "Reviewed" on any report under a certain percentage is basically bogus since the actual overall QA score is not based on an average of percentages. I am least thankful to find out that they use total quarterly lines, if nothing else. 

Fiesa - me

We "aren't going to have a problem" is baloney. - sm

QA can be incredibly subjective and not as objective as you make it out to be.  Perhaps you can tell me why something as inconsequential as "as best I can tell" vs. "as best as I can tell" would need to receive an Omission/Addition Minor 0.25 deduction versus simply a Comment NonError?  After all, the definition of a Comment NonError is "Educational. Used to grade anything that is really inconsequential; not impacting the integrity of the document as well as grammar. Anything that reads just fine."

So how, pray tell, does the loss of the second "as" in the above impact "the integrity of the document"?  Not only does the first one read just fine, it's actually the preferred way to say it, with about 3 times the number of hits on Google.  And these kinds of meaningless/useless corrections are constant.  Also, some of us have intractable TSMs who won't pass on all of our disputes, making the decision themselves as to whether or not it is "justified" before ever allowing it to proceed on to QA for a decision.

This is my main beef. These kinds of little errors that have absolutely no effect on patient care are given these seemingly minor deductions, but those add up.  Everywhere else I've worked, such as the above example would definitely have been marked as a non-error/FYI, so it is often very subjective what Nuance QA are doing to us when you choose to mark something very minor with a point deduction that could simply have been given an "educational" NonError.  

The resulting loss of my bonus for 3 quarters (though I managed to maintain it for over 2 years prior) and all the nonpaid time I've spent disputing and dealing with my TSM over my correction disputes has made my life very difficult indeed.  THINK some more about what you're doing when you give a deduction to what really qualifies as a NonError. Once again: "Educational.  Used to grade anything that is really inconsequential; not impacting the integrity of the document as well as grammar. Anything that reads just fine."  Which includes "the," "a," and "an" issues. 

Example is:  

follow up with her primary care physician, Dr. Smith in future

follow up with her primary care physician, Dr. Smith in the future 

["sic" as regards the missing second comma behind Dr. Smith from my older copy of the Accountwise Error Categories, maybe corrected by now]

there should be a remedy for this - sm

I'd say essentially stuck. It's very arbitrary indeed. - sm

I would contact the labor dept - sm