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?
-
@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.
-
Why not a voicemail to email service, so the staffers / doctors can reach out to the customer?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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"
-
@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.
-
@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.
