call work flow
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@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.
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@scottalanmiller said in call work flow:
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
Frankly I have asked why they have this need to constantly find a warm body - and the answer I frequently get back is - to many of our patients are playing phone tag.. so we are preventing another phone tag situation.
I can see this making sense. Seems weird to me, they call back a few minutes later and the patients don't answer? That's actually a problem? Or were they not really calling back right away?
We almost never call back right away, it's typically 1+ hour later.
You did.
-
@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.
@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.
That's not bad at all... unless you ever let non-emergency people being on hold get precedence over the people who asked for a call back. If so... you've just identified the entire problem - customer disrespect. It's the "fast food drive through" problem where customers at the drive through or on the phone get priority over customers that were ahead of them in line. It's disrespecting the people in line, telling them that callers or drivers are more important customers than they are.
This is the only thing that I can figure out that might be happening to make the rest of this make sense. Your hold logic doesn't make sense unless there is another problem like this one. Your hold times, call back times... they don't add up.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@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.
And no, the solution is to get a proper call-back system in place. So people who called first get a return call first. Staff would help (in that they could make more simultaneous calls) but that isn't the issue.
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@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.
If call back times are as short as the hold times, then your comments about people sitting around waiting for call backs during breaks would not be an issue. Either your call back times are appropriately short and your statement about breaks isn't correct, or they are too long and the hold times are too long too and cause the breaks problem. RIght? What other choice is there?
-
@Dashrender said in call work flow:
@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.
True, phone tag is a legit issue. But this seems crazy unless something else is wrong. Let's answer these two things...
- What is the average time between VM and call back?
- What is the average time on hold?
-
I'm done!
-
This wasn't where ANY of this conversation that started on the last thread even needed to go.
-
I already know the flow is horrible
I've been telling them for a decade to dump to VM, but they refuse.
So I stopped caring about that.
-
A mitel call-park, while allowing the operator to hang up, and allow a staffer to ignore a call doesn't really address the issue either.
Because they'd never be able to get any other work completed. (and as @scottalanmiller keeps saying) who wants to sit on hold. Call park or not, the consumer doesn't know the difference, it's hold.
A proper call back system needs to be implemented, where metrics for call back times being lower, would be a solution. But is there such a system for mitel?
