I usually write out the short ones.

gram, inch, foot, etc.

BOS doesn't say that using g is confusing, just that it is preferred over gm. I think that gm could be a transposition of mg, which is why I type it out.

I'm all for clarity, and if typing 2 more letters makes something abundantly clear, I'll do it.

Clarity is one thing, but haven't you ever worked for those companies, who do not even want to pay to type out gram as opposed to gm?

I have also been blasted by QA for using gram, rather than gm, and have also been criticized for using gm, rather than typing out gram...

EDiX was great at this, constantly contradicting; yet, that did not even bother me too much. It was when they would reduce your quality grade over it--again and again, flipping and flopping. It was truly frustrating...

The editors/QA I work with now, are much wiser. They do not change your transcription, either, while auditing, as EDiX did. Much less dictatorial.

Hi viccin,

I can imagine how frustrating it must be for you, especially with 10 years of transcription experience. The thing I don't understand is why they don't want to pay for anyone to type out "gram" as opposed to "gm" ~ aren't they themselves getting paid for the extra characters??

As owner of a service since 1979 (and QA for even longer), I can't fathom why these companies have stringent rules for things such as gram and gm and why the rules seem to change in midstream when another QA is doing the editing.

That being said, I will add that when a transcriptionist is a "newbie," I think it IS necessary to get her/him off on the right foot by making sure that the work is done according to available references.

When I do QA, it doesn't matter if it's transcribed gram or gm. or gm since each of our transcriptionists has gotten into her own routine of typing medication dosages. As kkb said, clarity is the important thing. The only other variable would be a particular doctor's preference ~ after all, he/she is signing the check!

I would be very suspicious of any company who would reduce a quality grade because they are flipping and flopping on their QA.

Toni

That is exactly why I left that company. That any many similar reasons.

A supervisor had noted once that 2 people in a 6-month period had achieved the 100% QA (which was done each month while we MTs had to wait on pins and needles for the results--as our pay depended on it). Now, I would get reductions for these inconsistencies I mentioned above. I averaged, in the 1 year I worked for that company, a 3-star rating, 4 being 100%. All my mistakes were grammar, or occasionally I had an for and. My pay was always lower than promised because of it.

Believe me, there are companies out there who are, for lack of a better word, abusing MTs. This company dangled all kinds of benefits and bonuses in front of us, but then made them almost impossible to achieve. We were expected to transcribe 10,000 per pay period, (up 3000 lines from when I began), in order to recieve health benefits; however, your quality had to be high, and your 'blank' percentage had to be extremely low. Well, in order to do that I would have had to work over 40 hours/week. Many ladies do that, but I would not.

You sound like an exception to what is fast becoming the 'rule' of transcription, at least with the national companies...

I agree with Toni--it seems strange that a transcription service would not want to you make more characters, since they will be paid more. I could see if the client specifically requested that something be abbreviated.

I'm lucky and unlucky in my work--lucky that I don't have anyone telling me to abbreviate or not to abbreviate, but unlucky because I really don't get any feedback. I certainly don't think that because I don't get any negative feedback that I don't make mistakes. Most docs don't even look at what is transcribed--I know that from working in-house and watching them blindly sign anything. Luckily, I had 6 years working for other people before going solo!

I think that being aware that this is not a static profession and that there is always something to be learned or corrected is a big help!

Boy, every time I get too high on my horse about the company I work for, I read something here that settles me back down.

We are given 3 months' working for the company until our QA counts. Unless the mistake is blatant (typos, wrong med, creative transcription, etc.), we're not penalized in QA. There is a rating system for each mistake. And EVERYTHING is reviewable. I get lots of "FYI" feedback on my QAs, and if I disagree with an error I can challenge it with my reference and often it is reversed.

I've never felt cheated by my company's QA policy. I do find that different leads QA differently, but that's just the luck of the draw. As I said, anything can be challenged and our QA manager is a very reasonable woman. And if my QA is high (98% or above; 97% is minimum), they send little gifts (they're more cute than anything, but still show appreciation).

And like in any company, things have happened during my employment that have really ticked me off; but I've found that they're always responsive to my issues and have made things right.

In short, this feels like a much more "personal" experience than some of you must have had. I feel like they care about me and recognize that if I'm happy, I can produce more and higher-quality work. It's such a cliche, but it's so true.

I worked for a company a few years ago, and their QA was sort of 'lax', and not pay-based. It was great in that regard.

The company I just resigned from had so many (negative) changes in the year I was there. The QA was inconsistent for a lot of people (as I read on the MT Stars board - people with many of the same complaints I had).

We were not allowed to know who QA'd our reports, and we could challenge them, but it was useless as my errors were all minor, never once had a pt care error. All grammar.

Also, the editors would not only fill in blanks, which I always appreciated so I did not keep making the same mistakes; but they would go ahead and change my style, which I did not care for that. My style is my own, and did not affect the meaning of the dictation.

I read they just yesterday sold their entire Transcription business for $64 million, to Total E-Med. Something just kept pulling at me to get out of there, and I am so greatful I did, when I did.

The company I work for now is outstanding. The editors never change my style, they ONLY fill in blanks for me, and give constructive criticism. I can take that, no problem.

There are companies out there that are only in it for the money, and there are MTs out there being taken advantage of...