call work flow
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Why not a voicemail to email service, so the staffers / doctors can reach out to the customer?
HIPAA
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Why not a voicemail to email service, so the staffers / doctors can reach out to the customer?
HIPAA
Not sure where HIPPA would be involved in this? Voicemail to email seems fairly standard.
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Why not a voicemail to email service, so the staffers / doctors can reach out to the customer?
HIPAA
And telephone calls don't get listened in on?
I mean I get HIPAA, I just wanted to comment on that.
-
@coliver said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Why not a voicemail to email service, so the staffers / doctors can reach out to the customer?
HIPAA
Not sure where HIPPA would be involved in this? Voicemail to email seems fairly standard.
OK I'll admit I took this as a way to move the conversation completely to email. That was my mistake.
Tell me - how does delivering the voicemail to email make the caller get a call back any faster?
Again - Doctors almost never call the patients back. It's way under 1% that a doc calls them back. So that means the rest are handled by medical staffers. AS stated, the only thing I can think to tell you is pure and simple understaffing. The lack of available resources to take/make calls faster than 1 hour after a message is received.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
Any more so than they would be if a message was left? Either way the customer needs to talk to someone, so either addressing the issue by finding someone to take the call now, or waiting for the call back with the "1+ hour" call back window.
They are still speaking to someone.
The issue as I see it is, you (as in the business) doesn't want to hear customers complain about long call back times, so support the "run around approach" rather than having a better solution to get staffers, RNs, Doctors to call back in a timely manner.
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
Any more so than they would be if a message was left? Either way the customer needs to talk to someone, so either addressing the issue by finding someone to take the call now, or waiting for the call back with the "1+ hour" call back window.
They are still speaking to someone.
The issue as I see it is, you (as in the business) doesn't want to hear customers complain about long call back times, so support the "run around approach" rather than having a better solution to get staffers, RNs, Doctors to call back in a timely manner.
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Well now you're talking the individual. If the individual wanted to leave a message instead of waiting for us to find someone for them to talk to - fine, they definitely have that choice. it's just not our default choice. Our default is to provide active connections, not take a message dump call back situation - not saying one is better than the other.. that's just personal choice.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
No it's an active link to a person in a remote office. It is not the doctor, the doctor could be banging his staffer and opt to not take any calls that day.
Sitting on hold doesn't fix the issue.
This is what they are already doing "sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call"
And neither does waiting for a return call. if you're on hold, the presumption is that someone is advocating for you in an effort to find a doctor/staffer RFN.
Any more so than they would be if a message was left? Either way the customer needs to talk to someone, so either addressing the issue by finding someone to take the call now, or waiting for the call back with the "1+ hour" call back window.
They are still speaking to someone.
The issue as I see it is, you (as in the business) doesn't want to hear customers complain about long call back times, so support the "run around approach" rather than having a better solution to get staffers, RNs, Doctors to call back in a timely manner.
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Well now you're talking the individual. If the individual wanted to leave a message instead of waiting for us to find someone for them to talk to - fine, they definitely have that choice. it's just not our default choice. Our default is to provide active connections, not take a message dump call back situation - not saying one is better than the other.. that's just personal choice.
But which is honestly better for the business overall?
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Yep.
-
Saying its a personal choice as in the business wanting to always connect the customer with a person (besides the operator) is fine.
But it can't also moan about the piss poor call back times. Hire more employees, or change the approach.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Yep.
But again, this only cost the business money.
The caller, isn't paying the business during the call. It's an information dump to a person who has to interpret the information (type into computer) etc.
At least with voicemail, you have a lot of gain, exactly what the caller said, when the call arrived etc etc.
-
So either the business wants to stick with "the way its always been" or they don't want to improve.
In either case it sounds like they simply want to waste time (and thus money).
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Maybe all of these people are swamped with work and literally can't call back.
So instead you'll have an operator interrupt their busy day to take a non-life threatening call?
Yep.
But again, this only cost the business money.
The caller, isn't paying the business during the call. It's an information dump to a person who has to interpret the information (type into computer) etc.
At least with voicemail, you have a lot of gain, exactly what the caller said, when the call arrived etc etc.
I think there is some value in talking to a person, especially a medical staffer who knows the questions to ask. But that should be a member of a hunt group and not a secretary/receptionist calling individual members. If no one picks up straight to voicemail.
-
@coliver I agree.
if the huntgroup for the office is busy, sorry it goes to voice mail.
Its 2 levels of phone service here.
People who pick up
People to take relevant information - if this group is busy, sorry you have to wait.
-
Now could this office maybe decrease the phone service groups into a single group, possibly. If the operators are staffers, and know what to ask.
Then you don't need "operators" as everyone should know how to answer a damn phone.
-
This is what this topic reminds me of. (sorry @Dashrender )
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Now could this office maybe decrease the phone service groups into a single group, possibly. If the operators are staffers, and know what to ask.
Then you don't need "operators" as everyone should know how to answer a damn phone.
I also see the value of receptionists. You don't want your medical staffers to schedule appointments, do billing, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
Because being on hold is an active link to the doctor's office - otherwise you're just sitting around with your thumb up you rectum waiting on a call - I think most would rather wait on hold.
Only if those people don't value their own time. Why would they want to be on hold, for no reason, when they could be NOT on hold? I'm totally lost as to why anyone would want that. Maybe if someone was bleeding out, but call the ambulance at that point.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
So you'd rather just hang up with everyone ASAP - that's it, sorry we have no one immediately available, so give me info and get off my phone.
Yes. Last thing I want to do is be put on hold, especially if there is something wrong. I want to be free to deal with it. And, of course, get called back as quickly as the doctor can be found and pull up my file. Definitely don't want to be on hold, what benefit is there to that?
I agree here, I'd rather say it's an emergency I need someone to call ASAP. And deal with it by driving to the hospital or whatever.
in this case we would have told you to hang up and call 911, or drive to the hospital.
Right, that's the only case where I'd see being kept on hold (more than a few seconds) to make sense - the case that wouldn't exist.
-
@coliver said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
Now could this office maybe decrease the phone service groups into a single group, possibly. If the operators are staffers, and know what to ask.
Then you don't need "operators" as everyone should know how to answer a damn phone.
I also see the value of receptionists. You don't want your medical staffers to schedule appointments, do billing, etc.
Why do you think staffers shouldn't do this? A staffer is an RN in most cases. These are the people that will usually see a patient before the doctor even knows the patient needed help.
