Ug - I really dislike email.
-
I have two separate departments who are trying to solve a problem by dumping it on the email system.
Getting people to use the right tool is really hard sometimes. Granted it's just as hard to know what the right tool is.
-
@Dashrender said:
I have two separate departments who are trying to solve a problem by dumping it on the email system.
Getting people to use the right tool is really hard sometimes. Granted it's just as hard to know what the right tool is.
They blaming not getting work done on not being able to send/receive files via email because they are, I'll guess, too big to send as an attachment? FTP site. Done..
. -
@thanksaj said:
They blaming not getting work done on not being able to send/receive files via email because they are, I'll guess, too big to send as an attachment? FTP site. Done..
.I'm not exactly sure when FTP is the right answer, but I'm pretty certain that this is not it. FTP is not for "getting a file to an individual.".
-
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
-
Do you have a place for that information officially? Maybe sharepoint or just a filesystem would do?
-
Obviously FTP wouldn't even be legal, let alone prudent, in a case like this.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Obviously FTP wouldn't even be legal, let alone prudent, in a case like this.
Well obviously this has nothing to even do with FTP.
-
@Dashrender said:
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
If the EMR is already sending out emails to notify people, why do people want to create more work for themselves?
-
@thanksaj said:
Well obviously this has nothing to even do with FTP.
What do you mean? FTP cannot be used here due to security deficiencies in FTP. The same reason you really don't use FTP for anything in business except for public storage. Which is why pretty much any use case in which people are sending files through email, you can't use FTP.
-
@Dashrender said:
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
Also, I'm confused at the policy of not "making them a patient until they schedule an appointment". What is the harm of entering them into your EHR? Then their information is in place and you've at least recorded that they were referred by Dr so and so. Entering in someone purely for record-keeping is pretty important. The policy of waiting until they make an appointment seems kind of backwards.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you have a place for that information officially? Maybe sharepoint or just a filesystem would do?
Before EHR, we'd take the data off the fax and store it in The Green Folder.
We've created a Patient Green in the EHR system and we upload the data to that.Now they want to bring email into it for some reason.
-
Probably has to do with the system not being designed to handle prospective patients.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Well obviously this has nothing to even do with FTP.
What do you mean? FTP cannot be used here due to security deficiencies in FTP. The same reason you really don't use FTP for anything in business except for public storage. Which is why pretty much any use case in which people are sending files through email, you can't use FTP.
Ok, FTP or SFTP would not even be a viable solution in this instance. I guessed at what the situation is and was wrong. Let's just drop the whole FTP thing.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
If the EMR is already sending out emails to notify people, why do people want to create more work for themselves?
Email is not currently involved in the current workflow.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
If the EMR is already sending out emails to notify people, why do people want to create more work for themselves?
Email is not currently involved in the current workflow.
Ok, I guess I mistook your saying the EMR having the capability for you using it. Any reason you aren't using it if people want it and it's available?
-
@thanksaj said:
@Dashrender said:
NO - not even close.
one group wants to use it to notify people of patient status - instead of using the EMR which already has this feature
the other wants to take patient data in and store it somewhere, but the EHR has no storage process for non patients (a person is not a patient until we schedule an appointment for them. It's extremely common for us to receive referrals for patients (the other doc forwards the records to us because they referred the patient to us) but the patient never makes an appointment - so we don't want to create new patients until they actually make an appointment - so we need some place to store the data in case the patient does decide to make an appointment.
Also, I'm confused at the policy of not "making them a patient until they schedule an appointment". What is the harm of entering them into your EHR? Then their information is in place and you've at least recorded that they were referred by Dr so and so. Entering in someone purely for record-keeping is pretty important. The policy of waiting until they make an appointment seems kind of backwards.
Because if we never see that patient, we don't care that they referred someone to us. Unlike other businesses we don't pay for referrals (used or unused), so we have no need to track that.
Additionally it makes our patient count look larger than it really is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Probably has to do with the system not being designed to handle prospective patients.
+1 +1
-
@thanksaj said:
Ok, FTP or SFTP would not even be a viable solution in this instance. I guessed at what the situation is and was wrong. Let's just drop the whole FTP thing.
SFTP could be used. Nothing there. The issue is that you make broad assumptions, declare them the answer (or not possible) and then don't provide a reason and don't want to discuss it when something is clearly not an option. You state that FTP is the answer when there is almost no chance, in any business, that it could be. Why would you make that leap of logic to declare something that is essentially never an option, the definitive "duh" option?
Then when FTP is clearly wrong you make another leap, for no reason that I can see, that SFTP is ruled out when that is very unlikely since none of the reasons that rule out FTP would rule out SFTP. FTP isn't legally an option here, or most anywhere, ever. But SFTP is only not a good option, but it is certainly an option.
This does not lend itself to growth. You are not looking at the business needs, you are just making assumptions without basis in both directions. You need to think in terms of the business context, not just throw out technology names that you know. It doesn't help you to grow to do this, and it doesn't help the OP find a solution. It just adds noise and confusion.
-
@Dashrender said:
Additionally it makes our patient count look larger than it really is.
And adds probably a fair amount of data to a very expensive system. That data has to be maintained at great cost, migrated to other systems, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
Ok, FTP or SFTP would not even be a viable solution in this instance. I guessed at what the situation is and was wrong. Let's just drop the whole FTP thing.
SFTP could be used. Nothing there. The issue is that you make broad assumptions, declare them the answer (or not possible) and then don't provide a reason and don't want to discuss it when something is clearly not an option. You state that FTP is the answer when there is almost no chance, in any business, that it could be. Why would you make that leap of logic to declare something that is essentially never an option, the definitive "duh" option?
Then when FTP is clearly wrong you make another leap, for no reason that I can see, that SFTP is ruled out when that is very unlikely since none of the reasons that rule out FTP would rule out SFTP. FTP isn't legally an option here, or most anywhere, ever. But SFTP is only not a good option, but it is certainly an option.
This does not lend itself to growth. You are not looking at the business needs, you are just making assumptions without basis in both directions. You need to think in terms of the business context, not just throw out technology names that you know. It doesn't help you to grow to do this, and it doesn't help the OP find a solution. It just adds noise and confusion.
@scottalanmiller , chill the $%^& out. He didn't state anything about what the issue he was dealing with was. I took a guess, and it was wrong. No big deal. Also, I'm sorry I didn't explicitly state SFTP. I was using FTP as a general term. Of course it would have to be secured. Drop. The. Issue..
