POTS line replacement
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
Of course that doesn't solve the sending issue. People just don't want to deal with scanning a document, then uploading to a service, then sending from that service, etc...
They want to walk to the machine choose from the address book and hit send.
Offices with an EMR are easier to transition as they can just print to PDF, open website to reply with attachment and done. Some of these PDFs are 50-80 pages too, so they actually save time and money (long distance) if the fax bombs out half way through.
yeah, this is a constant issue for us.
We have some people who have fully embraced the PDF print/upload solution. Then we have those who just push back against pretty much any change.
Our EMR has two ways to get a piece of paper into it.
a)- scan document
- open patient chart
- upload file
- label file
b)
- open patient chart
- create label
- print label and place on document
- scan document
- upload document (automated process sorts document into desired location)
forgotten step - make sure document appears
There is actually yet another process
c)- open patient chart
- create label
- print label and place on document
- fax document (automated process sorts document into desired location based on barcode)
forgotten step - make sure document appears
While the number of arguable steps is the same as the first option, it does have the added expense of the label.
If you need to make sure the document actually arrived - then you are absolutely spending more time on option C than option A. -
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
I have been pushing my clients with MFP's scan/print to PDF and send via encrypted email. Just cannot seem to convince the remaining clients to change.
You can convince people with incentives, but not with reasoning and logic.
For example by offering them to send documents through email (free) and through fax (surcharge per page).
It's the same as what the operators are doing to you. They are giving you an incentive to move away from POTS by increasing the cost.
Would you look at options if the cost didn't go up?
-
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
Of course that doesn't solve the sending issue. People just don't want to deal with scanning a document, then uploading to a service, then sending from that service, etc...
They want to walk to the machine choose from the address book and hit send.
Offices with an EMR are easier to transition as they can just print to PDF, open website to reply with attachment and done. Some of these PDFs are 50-80 pages too, so they actually save time and money (long distance) if the fax bombs out half way through.
yeah, this is a constant issue for us.
We have some people who have fully embraced the PDF print/upload solution. Then we have those who just push back against pretty much any change.
Since when did we become coworkers?
The world is small when people are people no matter where you turn.
-
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
Our EMR has two ways to get a piece of paper into it.
a)- scan document
- open patient chart
- upload file
- label file
b)
- open patient chart
- create label
- print label and place on document
- scan document
- upload document (automated process sorts document into desired location)
forgotten step - make sure document appears
There is actually yet another process
c)- open patient chart
- create label
- print label and place on document
- fax document (automated process sorts document into desired location based on barcode)
forgotten step - make sure document appears
While the number of arguable steps is the same as the first option, it does have the added expense of the label.
If you need to make sure the document actually arrived - then you are absolutely spending more time on option C than option A.We have a similar process with our practice management software for scanning cards and charge sheets.
If there is paper to start and confirmation is needed, then I don't see how the process can be cut down any further than what is there other than automating the file name, watermark the barcode and the software "filing" the doc in the system against the patient.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
If there is paper to start and confirmation is needed, then I don't see how the process can be cut down any further than what is there other than automating the file name, watermark the barcode and the software "filing" the doc in the system against the patient.
Exactly.
In our case, a person must tell the system what type of document it is, and what do do with it once it's uploaded. That can either be done, and the output generates a barcode - the barcode goes on the page - then scan/upload to the sytem.
OR the person scan/uploads the document - then while confirming it's on the screen - they tell what kind of document it is and what to do with it.To me the barcode is a huge waste of everything. AND introduces a failure point (what if the scan does a bad job on the barcode?
-
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
I have been pushing my clients with MFP's scan/print to PDF and send via encrypted email. Just cannot seem to convince the remaining clients to change.
You can convince people with incentives, but not with reasoning and logic.
For example by offering them to send documents through email (free) and through fax (surcharge per page).
It's the same as what the operators are doing to you. They are giving you an incentive to move away from POTS by increasing the cost.
Would you look at options if the cost didn't go up?
Good point Pete. I may bring this up to the VP when we discuss this further.
I was looking at the price quote from AT&T and I still don't like the cost as they still want to charge $45 per line with free US calling. May have no choice with the Fire Alarm but the fax lines will definitely be going down a different route.
-
@JaredBusch said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also kept one other POTS line for our main fax line also (not my call).
So sorry. Look into http://faxback.com
This is the service that Skyetel uses under the hood for their HTTPS based ATA fax device. If you already have Skyetel service, then just use it there.I was looking at this site.
If I understand this correctly, they are selling Fax server software and this device. I would still need to get a SIP line/Number from someone like Skyetel/Ring Central (I know I may not have the terminology correct)?
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
I have been pushing my clients with MFP's scan/print to PDF and send via encrypted email. Just cannot seem to convince the remaining clients to change.
You can convince people with incentives, but not with reasoning and logic.
For example by offering them to send documents through email (free) and through fax (surcharge per page).
It's the same as what the operators are doing to you. They are giving you an incentive to move away from POTS by increasing the cost.
Would you look at options if the cost didn't go up?
Good point Pete. I may bring this up to the VP when we discuss this further.
I was looking at the price quote from AT&T and I still don't like the cost as they still want to charge $45 per line with free US calling. May have no choice with the Fire Alarm but the fax lines will definitely be going down a different route.
The typical solution today would be cellular - and likely at an even higher monthly cost.
-
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
If there is paper to start and confirmation is needed, then I don't see how the process can be cut down any further than what is there other than automating the file name, watermark the barcode and the software "filing" the doc in the system against the patient.
Exactly.
In our case, a person must tell the system what type of document it is, and what do do with it once it's uploaded. That can either be done, and the output generates a barcode - the barcode goes on the page - then scan/upload to the sytem.
OR the person scan/uploads the document - then while confirming it's on the screen - they tell what kind of document it is and what to do with it.To me the barcode is a huge waste of everything. AND introduces a failure point (what if the scan does a bad job on the barcode?
I'm guessing you probably have users that misclassify scans too? What is required if that happens?
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
If there is paper to start and confirmation is needed, then I don't see how the process can be cut down any further than what is there other than automating the file name, watermark the barcode and the software "filing" the doc in the system against the patient.
Exactly.
In our case, a person must tell the system what type of document it is, and what do do with it once it's uploaded. That can either be done, and the output generates a barcode - the barcode goes on the page - then scan/upload to the sytem.
OR the person scan/uploads the document - then while confirming it's on the screen - they tell what kind of document it is and what to do with it.To me the barcode is a huge waste of everything. AND introduces a failure point (what if the scan does a bad job on the barcode?
I'm guessing you probably have users that misclassify scans too? What is required if that happens?
that's called just being human - If it happens though - I'm fortunately completely unaware of it.
I assume if it's misclassified, that whoever finds it can change it - or task it to someone with admin rights (but not me) with a request to fix it.Now all of that said - there is equal chance of misclassifying it when making a barcode versus classifying it on the fly after uploading the image.
