Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: fairjan <fairjan.1rm4t4@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:58:36 -0500
I know I am a couple of days replying to this thread but am still
playing catch up
after being away so long.
I had the same problem the short time I worked for Spheris (acute
care). I am almost OC when it comes to following the rules of grammar
and style as outlined by AAMT (that is not to say that AAMT is the ONLY
style guide to follow but I think you have to find one and stick to it
and not flip-flop around from one book to another - at least that is my
opinion - although you have to abide by the client's requirements
first). You and I discussed this but thought I would share my thoughts
with the rest of sci.med.
When I was in training I would have work sent back to me from three or
four different editors on the same type "error" and I would get a
different feedback from each of them - even though according to AAMT I
knew I was right. On the other hand I would get a 100% accuracy rate
on my random QA'd report. Just goes to show that as many minds as
there are doing editing/QA, there are that many different opinions.
The sad part is that while they would consider some style and grammar
wrong, they would totally overlook "real" errors - you know, the ones
that are considered medical errors. As an example, on one of the
reports the doc dictated "the patient has a holosystolic murmur." The
MT transcribed "the patient has a hell of a systolic murmur." This
error wasn't caught because the report was sent to editing because the
MT wasn't sure it was right - it was sent to editing for a totally
different reason - the editor just happened to catch it when she was
editing the report. The editors don't have it easy either. They are
told to put on blinders and just go for the blank.
Unfortunately, this is the case with the majority of the big national
services, at least from my experience. Sigh.....
RaeMorrill Wrote:
>
> An example of what I'm talking about is from a conversation via email I
> had with a friend who worked for Spheris doing radiology. She had to
> fight them constantly for her quality points because they would mark
> her
> off for expressing something correctly (and would win the point), but
> it
> was constantly having to address this kind of thing. How many times
> have
> I seen people here argue on a grammatical issue? Plenty! and both sides
> seem to have a firm grasp on the topic: it comes down very often to a
> matter of opinion and how two different people read it. Sometimes
> either
> way could be right, yet an editor with this mentality would make a huge
> deal out of it. Then, the MT does it that way next time and the next
> editor sees it the other way. Who would want to work for a service like
> that? Not me.
>
>
> JulieW8 wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:09:11 -0500, Jeannie Wilson
> > <JWILSON421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>gave thanks and said:
> >
> >
> >>I don't consider style issues as not being accurate.
> >
> >
> > Oh boy - your clients must be a lot different than mine. And whatever
> > the client considers an issue, I consider an issue. I'm just as
> likely
> > to get a phone call about a style error as I am about a word error -
> > in fact, more likely, because they're more obvious.
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~*****~~~~~*****~~~~~*****
> > To send me e-mail, use juliew8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
fairjan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: mountain
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- References:
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: RaeMorrill
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: Jeannie Wilson
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: JulieW8
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- From: RaeMorrill
- Re: Finding an IC on internet
- Prev by Date: Re: Finding an IC on internet
- Next by Date: Re: More, please
- Previous by thread: Re: Finding an IC on internet
- Next by thread: Re: Finding an IC on internet
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|