Transcription Pros and Cons
I recently read an article in a past issue of the Journal of AHIMA that did a cost analysis of transcription. It compared voice recognition (VR) software, as well as outsourcing and in-house services.
The costliest turned out to be in-house due to the salary of the personnel performing service, and equipment maintenance and depreciation. My office originally had a person on staff doing transcription, and it wasn't my preference. In a busy environment, it was one extra thing to police and maintain. When our transcriber was out sick or quit, we were forced into the time-consuming task of finding and training someone new.
Equipment depreciation and maintenance (as well as training time) were also factors that made VR the second costliest method of transcription. A lot of the doctors I know aren't interested in something as labor-intensive. They have so much to keep abreast of without having to be trained on a new piece of office equipment.
The most cost effective method was outsourcing, which I finally was able to implement at my office. It has helped morale immensely, and has proven to be an extremely dependable service. Still, that's just my experience. I'm open to feedback.
posted by Anne @ 9:23 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I think transcription is a necessary evil. I just wish there was a company that could actually do what it promised.
Yes.......transcription.........after years of costly training, training, training........we trained and then outsourced to whom we had trained.........this has work wonderfully for years and since we trained (3) at once we always have a backup person and best of all no benefit package.
Post a Comment
<< Home