fbpx

Monthly Archives: November 2015

It’s everyone’s responsibility, yet no one’s doing the job

Are some jobs at your medical practice just too urgent or important to assign to specific people? That's the argument some practice managers and physicians make, e.g: "Phones need to be answered by the first available person, whatever their job" "Everyone should keep an eye on the fax machine, and deliver faxes they see piling up" "Let's all keep an eye on the reception area, to make sure no one's waiting too long" "It's the entire team's job to make sure the patient bathrooms are clean and stocked" When the entire team is engaged on these important, urgent tasks, the theory usually goes, there will always be someone available to do them, right when the need arises. Everyone will have an equal stake in making sure they'll get done -- right? Alas, no. Have you ever heard the amusing little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody? It goes like this: There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.* There is a lot of organizational insight packed into that little verse. When something is everybody's job, it's effectively nobody's job. Nobody is actually accountable to do the work, and everybody can rationalize that they thought someone else would do it. When everyone has other work to do that they believe is important, they'll be more likely to assume someone else will take care of the group responsibility. We have worked with several practices that have applied this "everyone's job" idea and been very unhappy with the results. Laurie, they say, why aren't the staff answering the phones? We tell them over and over that everyone has to answer the phones! Instead, our messages are piling up, patients and other doctors are complaining, and nobody's getting the help they need when they call.

By |2022-01-01T22:51:58-08:00November 29th, 2015|

The upside of staff downtime, the downside of multitasking

Employees who are not always busy working are frequently a source of consternation to physicians. Sometimes, practices attempt to remedy the situation by restructuring staff jobs -- not always with good results. Consider the front desk, for example. In almost any practice, front desk workload will ebb and flow.  Depending on variables like patient punctuality, the mix of appointment types, and the number of new patients, the front desk might be swamped or slow on any given day or during any clinic session.  Sometimes, front desk receptionists may have no one needing their help or attention at all.  Physicians and managers may be tempted to rectify the situation by, say, having the phones ring first at the front desk. For a typical, busy practice, that's a foolproof way to increase staff busyness! But does it improve productivity? In my view, usually not. One reason people appear busier when you ask them to switch back and forth between tasks -- or do multiple jobs at once -- is that it's harder to do any of them properly. They're more active, but not necessarily more productive. This makes intuitive sense, no?  But we don't need to rely on intuition, thankfully.  With multitasking so prevalent in modern offices, researchers have good reason to study it -- and the results suggest that multitasking is even more of a productivity drain than your gut would tell you. One study found that people lose as much as 40% of their productive capacity when trying to constantly do multiple tasks at once. When front desk staff are required to answer phones while also helping the patients that are standing in front of them, service suffers. Either the patient on the phone or the patient at the desk feels like they're in second place. And switching back and forth means the employee has to mentally regroup -- adding to the length of time it takes to complete each task. More effort is required to do the same tasks -- yet the patients staff deal with will perceive less effort made on their behalf. Lose-lose for both of the two patients being

By |2015-11-23T16:13:16-08:00November 23rd, 2015|

Obsessing about front office technology

Anyone who encourages me knows they'll get an earful about front office technology tools -- they've become a passion of mine.  I'm referring to things like: Patient responsibility payment estimators (e.g., Wellero, Navicure, Zirmed) Check-in tablets and kiosks (e.g., Phreesia) Online patient payment tools like portals and pre-payment sites (e.g., SpendWell) Patient payment apps (e.g., Wellero) Online scheduling (e.g., Zocdoc, DoctorBase, EHR portals in some cases) Basically, I'm talking about add-on tools that work mainly with practice management systems and/or on the Internet to improve your practice's likelihood of getting paid by patients, reduce steps in front office workflow, and even make patients happier in the process. I am a big fan of these kinds of tools, for all kinds of reasons. One is that they're unshackled from the government's goals for EHR -- they basically live only to serve practices and patients -- and I think that's what makes this segment of the market so much dynamic than the EHR segment.  The players have competition, and it drives them to innovate more; you see these vendors experimenting with many different ways (and platforms) to solve these problems. And these tools really make a difference in the workflow and collection rates of the practices that embrace them. I recently wrote a white paper that delves into the important role technology can play -- and is starting to play -- in front office operations.  It's called "Technology to the Rescue: Putting the Flow Back into Front Office Workflow."  Wellero sponsored it, and you can download it free on their site. I hope you'll check it out -- and get in touch if you'd like to talk about any of the ideas in it.

By |2022-01-01T22:51:58-08:00November 3rd, 2015|
Go to Top