call work flow
-
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.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
Holy crap guys.. wow !
what?
I wasn't really involved in the last conversation. This conversation is about call work flow.
The most prudent work flow is to direct the caller to VM immediately after the operator is unable to find someone to take the call.
Anything else is just spent time.
That's what it feels like to me. Lots of stalling that could be used to find doctors, get responses, answer other calls, etc. What's the value in the "being on hold"?
Where would you rather the caller be? forced to voicemail?
that's be great if when we called back we had a 90% success rate in reaching the caller.. Instead there is an insane amount of call tag going on.I guess that makes sense. But seems like this is a perfect thing for a secretary.... call the people to call back when the doctor is available. Those that answer get to talk, those that don't wait for another round.
But when you called them back, you leave a message for them.. and before that second round of calls happens from our end, the caller has called us back. See the problem?
That makes sense. The issue is then... that customers rarely answer their phones?
they are at work, just like we are, and frequently they call while on a break, which is why they don't want a call back, and rather wait on hold. If they leave a message, they already know they will now be playing phone tag.
That makes no sense. A call back can be as fast as being on hold. Being on hold cannot create a benefit to that scenario.
-
@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
I don't follow. Email is clearly okay from HIPAA.
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@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.
Because RN's are paid more then receptionists. Why have your "high" cost employees doing secretarial work when they could be seeing or speaking with patients?
-
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
Holy crap guys.. wow !
what?
I wasn't really involved in the last conversation. This conversation is about call work flow.
The most prudent work flow is to direct the caller to VM immediately after the operator is unable to find someone to take the call.
Anything else is just spent time.
That's what it feels like to me. Lots of stalling that could be used to find doctors, get responses, answer other calls, etc. What's the value in the "being on hold"?
Where would you rather the caller be? forced to voicemail?
that's be great if when we called back we had a 90% success rate in reaching the caller.. Instead there is an insane amount of call tag going on.I guess that makes sense. But seems like this is a perfect thing for a secretary.... call the people to call back when the doctor is available. Those that answer get to talk, those that don't wait for another round.
But when you called them back, you leave a message for them.. and before that second round of calls happens from our end, the caller has called us back. See the problem?
That makes sense. The issue is then... that customers rarely answer their phones?
they are at work, just like we are, and frequently they call while on a break, which is why they don't want a call back, and rather wait on hold. If they leave a message, they already know they will now be playing phone tag.
That makes no sense. A call back can be as fast as being on hold. Being on hold cannot create a benefit to that scenario.
It only makes sense in that you have a receptionist standing in some doctors doorway yelling that "Susan G is on the phone, can you get her the F*** off of my phone system already?!"
-
@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.
Yes it does. Being on hold means my time is wasted. Getting a call back once the staffer is available means I was respected and my wasted time minimized. Neither takes any more time than the other, but one respects me and one does not. Now presumably I can refuse to be on hold and ask for a call back. But do they call back in the order that they should or do they play "McDonalds" and take later callers before earlier ones?
IF the staffers are behaving well and taking customers in order, being on hold has no value.
-
@coliver said in call work flow:
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
@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.
Because RN's are paid more then receptionists. Why have your "high" cost employees doing secretarial work when they could be seeing or speaking with patients?
But you could have more nurses, rather than paying for a rather wasteful position.
Answering a phone is not a skill set that's really required. Asking appropriate questions is a critical skill, that requires experience.
Maybe the receptionist is telling the customer to call 911 (who are they to actually know what constitutes an emergency)
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
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.
But any delay in ability to call back is ALSO a delay in ability to answer people on hold. So you are saying that you have people on hold for hours?
-
@DustinB3403 said in call work flow:
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.
Who ever said anything about the call back times? No one! The primary complaint is playing phone tag. Only solution, hire more staff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
IF the staffers are behaving well and taking customers in order, being on hold has no value.
This one fault in most call back scenarios is what I get, and would piss me off too. Create a call back schedule. So calls that came in first, get responded to first.
Problem solved.
