Talk:Medical transcription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did basic formatting, so removed wikify tag, and added stub tag. Also removed the tag for citation needed, the unreferenced tag is already present. --Mathwizard1232 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rewrite of Medical Transcription Process needed

This section is written with a very myopic view of the MT industry. MT comes to transcriptionists from various healthcare individuals and in more ways than listed in this section. It is not limited to just a doctor who then sends work to an MT. One example is that many times physicians and other healthcare professionals dictate their reports into hospital systems, and the work is then distributed to outside companies who then provide that dictation to transcriptionists who are situated either locally or offsite. Others who dictate: Nurse practitioners, physical and occupational therapists, speech therapists, etc. There's also the issue of TASPs. Also, more and more transcriptionists are getting their work via ASR (automated speech recognition). Dictators are doing the initial report, and the transcriptionists are then doing some transcribing and editing combined. This section needs to be rewritten with a broader, more accurate and encompassing view of the medical transcription process. --Liora 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, when i merged/edited this article, i only corrected some grammars, keeping the thought of the section intact. It would be hard to accurately define the transcription process because (as an MT editor myself), we have different ways/process on how transcription is done, for one, i worked in an office setting, not in a hospital, im an outsourced MT, i received my work via FTP and send via FTP, i do medical reports on patients who wants to file workers compensation benefits...so on and so forth. So basically, the transcription process written in this article is not my office's transcription process. Its not how we do our work here †Bloodpack† argh! 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I do not see the value in separate articles for transcription and transcriptionists. Let's keep it simple. -- cmh 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. John Broughton 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would think those who agree know very little about the MT industry and probably view MTs as typists who receive dictation only from physicians. As someone below said, one is a process, and the other is a career. There is much value in separate categories. The medical transcriptionist entry has much more development to be done. There is the issue of CMT (certified medical transcriptionist) and the newer RMT (registered medical transcriptionist) status, both of which can only be obtained through the AAMT. Graduating with a certificate does not make one a certified medical transcriptionist. In fact, a new article needs to be written on the AAMT if there isn't one in existence. AAMT.org. Liora Hess, CMT 19:34, 7 August 2006
I disagree. "Transcription" is a process. "Transcriptionist" is a career, job. "Transcription" or transcribing is the method of transferring dictated information to either electronic and/or printed form, and is sometimes done with software with varying degrees of success. In the medical field, transcription results in legal records which are used for future patient care and also for billing. These records are given more legal weight if dictated immediately after the fact and are almost (legally) useless in defense if dictated much later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.132.9.72 (talk • contribs). 13:36, 17 July 2006
I think that the transcription article could discuss transcriptionists in a section, and also the issues you mention. If required in the future the article could be split again should it become unwieldy. If suddenly piles of information appeared to differentiate the articles then I might take back the merge suggestion, otherwise (obviously) I think the merge should go ahead. -- cmh 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with merging the two. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. One is a person. One is a thing. What is the Wikipedia convention on this? Is "mechanic" and "mechanism" in the same entry? Is "Physician" and "Physical" one entry? "Transcriptionist" should discuss how they do their job, the process of transcribing. The "transcription" entry should describe what the document is and what it contains. --Lyle 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you perhaps find better examples? If the only work done by physicians was to give physical examinations, then yes, I'd vote for combining "physical exam" and "physicians". And if the sole role of mechanics were to work on devices that were officially called "mechanisms", then I'd also vote to merge. Of course, in reality, there are dozens of types of physicians, many of whom never do a physical, and there are a variety of mechanics (auto mechanics, airplane mechanics, bicycle mechanics, etc.), whose commonality is dwarfed by differences in training, pay, work environment, etc. John Broughton 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you believe that transcriptionists do little more than transcribe verbatim reports, but there is actually a movement to change the job title to "medical language specialist" to reflect the actual duties inherent in the job. As a CMT (certified MT), I must constantly evaluate the dictated speech and make adjustments and corrections, involving anything from simple grammatical errors to inadvertent racial epithets (lots of older doctors still use terms like "Negro" and "Oriental") to inaccurate medication dosages. It's amazing how many physicians accidentally dictate a medication dosage that would kill the patient. Transcription is a changing field and keeping the articles separate allows editors to clarify the coming changes. -- Candi Fisher, Corvallis, Oregon
Added to the above is the fact that many more health care professionals than just physicians dictate reports. Please, if you don't know this industry, don't attempt to edit this article. I wouldn't go and decide to start editing the subject of mechanical engineering, and really wish some of the folks here would either educate themselves before editing the article or work on something they DO know. Liora Hess, CMT 19:36, 7 August 2006

[edit] Who should be able to edit this article?

Regarding the statement if you don't know this industry, don't attempt to edit this article:

  • I would greatly appreciate your citing the wikipedia policy which supports your recommended restriction. If you can't find one, may I suggest that you stop saying it?
  • Are you saying that this article is (or should be) so technical that only MTs can understand it (and thereby accurately edit it)? If so, why would it be in wikipedia at all? And if it is intended to be written so it is understandable by an intelligent reader, why would not such a reader be able to do useful edits? John Broughton 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What I said was quite simple and clear--that if you don't know this industry, you should either educate yourself about MT before writing or don't write on the subject of MT. What we have is a poorly written article, particularly the section on the process of MT, which has much opinion and little fact, and quite a bit of erroneous information. The process of MT is not limited to doctor and MT. It's obvious that some here know nothing about MT and see MTs as typists or secretaries, both of which are affecting the integrity of the article. Liora Hess, CMT
Perhaps you should be clearer next time? If you're saying "Don't ADD information to this article unless you each know this industry or are citing a verifiable source", then I have no disagreement - that's what should be done for ALL wikipedia articles. If you're saying "Also, don't CHANGE any words in this article - don't try to edit for clarity, unless you're an expert", or "Don't add text to this article even if you're taking it from a verifiable source, if you're not an expert", then I disagree. AGAIN, can you point to a wikipedia policy that supports your statement about experts-only-editing, or are you proposing a NEW wikipedia policy? John Broughton 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to reread for comprehension? I would also suggest that you review Wikipedia policies on maintaining a cool head. I care about the integrity of this article, but don't have time to respond to the repeated petty/catty comments. Liora Hess, CMT

[edit] Papayrus?

I'm not sure the notion of a "physician" in a scientific sense even existed in a time period where this makes sense. --Lyle 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've "edited boldly" by removing the claim. If someone wants to put it back, they should cite a source. I think the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim should be on whoever wants it in the article. John Broughton 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Medical documentation has been around for centuries and did not begin with a traditional physician in a hospital or medical office. Remember also that medical transcription involves not just physicians and MTs. See this article: http://www.aamt.org/scriptcontent/aboutmt.cfm Liora Hess, CMT
The article begins: Medical transcription (MT) is the process of transforming dictation of physicians and other healthcare professionals to written text. (Exphasis added.)
The source that Liora cited says: Until the twentieth century, physicians served both as providers of medical care and scribes for the medical community. After 1900, when standardization of medical data became critical to research, medical stenographers replaced physicians as scribes, taking their dictation in shorthand.
The source that Liora cited says that before 1900 there was healthcare documentation and records. Is someone saying that medical records and medical documentation and medical transcripts are all the same? Because if so, then this article and Medical record should be merged. Otherwise, please cite a better source as proof that "medical transcription" was done prior to the 20th century. John Broughton 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another article for this

wow, i also created about this article too but the only difference is the "T" as in Medical Transcription, i tried to move this page but i cant, can someone fix this? †Bloodpack† argh! 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the 2 articles are quite different, it's not going to be an easy move - they should be merged, keeping the best content of each. I've added the appropriate tags --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks, the category should also be noted for both articles. An admin's help is greatly appreciated on how to fix this (renaming/moving). I am an MT myself, im working on workers' compensation claims/benefits for work-related injuries on patients and i would love to take the best inputs on each articles and merge them into one but im kinda lazy right now †Bloodpack† argh! 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't require an admin; what needs to be done is just plain editing.

  • The Medical Transcription article should NOT have had the second word capitalized (and thus should not have been created). Wikipedia naming rules are that second and subsequent words in article names are NOT to be capitalized unless they would appear capitalized if in the middle of a sentence (as in "John Smith" or "United States House of Representatives"). Those naming rules are designed precisely to prevent problems like this. (In that sense, the "proposed merge" tag is misleading - there is no question that about which article goes, and which article stays, or that only one - this one - should be kept.)
  • The contents of Medical Transcription article, to the extent not already in this article, should be moved to this article (Medical transcription). By "move" I mean copy/paste, followed by any needed further editing. After that is done, a redirect should be placed on the Medical Transcription article so that no one erroneously recreates it. The placing of a redirect can be done by any editor - it doesn't require an admin. I'll be happy to do it myself if no one else does.
  • In short, Wikipedia has no process by which two articles can be automagically merged - it takes human beings to figure out what to keep from each article. John Broughton 13:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for clearing all that up, really appreciate it. Youre right, it shouldnt been this way. I checked the history of these 2 articles and this one came first than my Medical Transcription article which i did only last june. What surprises me is that before i did the MT article, i checked/searched wikipedia if theres already an existing MT article but nothing that i find so i created an MT article. And with all due respect to the person who did this article, i wouldnt touch this. So please feel free to copy/paste mine into this one and let the others (or me) due the refining to make a better article. Thanks again †Bloodpack† argh! 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please bear with me

...but i took the liberty of merging/edit the article since most probably itll take months before someone does. Wikipedia must contantly be updated at every minute in order to meet the needs of the using public. Any errors/corrections, please kindly do by all means. thanks †Bloodpack† argh! 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's true that wikipedia "must be updated at every minute", but one tenet of wikipedia is: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. So I, for one, appreciate what you did. John Broughton 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedical_transcription_13be.html"