dictated but not read
Christy Christensen
prevent the doc from being held liable for a mistake in the transcribed not,
this does not mean that the transcriptionist would be held liable either.
Any thoughts?
Linda
it first.
LCT
MizGriz
IMO Dictated but not read means, if there's an error in this report I was
too stupid to catch it before I sent it to you.
--
Bambi
"Christy Christensen" <cchrist...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:DLHj5.2760$xH6.7...@typhoon.snet.net...
Anonymous
enough to sign a legal document without reading it. Our signature doesn't
appear on it, we didn't make it a legal document (his signature does that), so
we aren't going to be held liable. Besides, most MTs I know don't have pockets
as deep as a physician.
Christy Christensen wrote:
> Thoughts on the subject of including the phrase dictated but not read to
> prevent the doc from being held liable for a mistake in the transcribed not,
> this does not mean that the transcriptionist would be held liable either.
>
> Any thoughts?
--
Phyllis
http://home.toltbbs.com/bror/pageone.htm
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Mlkcmt
certainly don't take it as implying that I have responsibility for the content
any more than I would ordinarily assume.
Margie
RaeMorrill
eliminate it. If they choose not to sign it, they are still liable in my
opinion. Office notes in office I worked in were never even seen by the docs as
a matter of course for years. That was their policy. That doesn't make the MT
liable for it.
Rae Morrill in Maine
"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
_______________________________
Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
Xena
<cchrist...@snet.net> wrote:
>Thoughts on the subject of including the phrase dictated but not read to
>prevent the doc from being held liable for a mistake in the transcribed not,
>this does not mean that the transcriptionist would be held liable either.
>
>Any thoughts?
In my contract, I specifically state that the doctors must understand
they are responsible for looking over their work before it gets sent
out or put in the chart. I also state that I do not approve of
"dictated but not read" or electronic signatures/signature stamps done
by other office employees and that if they choose to go that route,
they then absolve me of any responsibility for errors that may be
present in a document they dictated and then sent out without looking
over themselves.
Xena
LoriS
addressee, and the rest (chart copy, cc's, etc) get a dictated
not read stamp.
Lori
You haven't seen Canada 'til you've seen Halifax!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
KCunnin502
<lshalala...@canada.com.invalid> writes:
>Where I work, the doc signs the "original" letter going to the
>addressee, and the rest (chart copy, cc's, etc) get a dictated
>not read stamp.
>
I do an overload account where the original letter even gets the "dictated but
not read" blurb on it too. I don't think it would hold water in court, but I
put it on there, anyway, because they've asked me to. But I also have a
disclaimer about the proofreading being their responsibility in my contract and
also on every invoice I send.
In short, I think it's goofy. But I do it because they want the blurb there.
Karen C./KY
RaeMorrill
Where I work, the doc signs the "original" letter going to the
addressee, and the rest (chart copy, cc's, etc) get a dictated
not read stamp.>>
That makes no sense. If he signed the original, he validated it. My client's
office no longer makes the copies until the originals have been signed.
Linda
Are the physicians that ignorant that they think they are getting away with
something with a simple stamp? When he signs anything, he is accepting it
as being a true document. When YOU sign something and don't read it, it
doesn't matter who typed it, you are still responsible because of your
signature being on it. Why wouldn't a physician be held just as
responsible for something he signs?
Do you think we could go around signing things and then not be held
responsible because of a little stamp saying "not read". How do you think
that would go over in a checkbook? "Yeah, I signed my name to the check for
$10,000 to Cash that I didn't have in my account, but I didn't read it
before I signed it. I had told Joe to make it out for $1,000, not $10,000.
But I am not responsible, see that little stamp there next to my signature
that says "not read".
LCT (Please don't think I am not directing this to you personally, just
jumping in with my 2 ¢ here.)
> Where I work, the doc signs the "original" letter going to the
> addressee, and the rest (chart copy, cc's, etc) get a dictated
> not read stamp.
>
> Lori
Anne in AZ
worked in-house some years ago, until the doc and his P.A. went
to a seminar with their malpractice insurance company, where
they were told that the stamp in no way mitigated the
practitioners' liability, and it was pretty much frowned upon by
the malpractice carrier. That was the end of the stamp!
Anne
KCunnin502
<li...@esslink.com> writes:
>Are the physicians that ignorant that they think they are getting away with
>something with a simple stamp?
Yep, it does appear that some are that ignorant. (I've often thought that
"M.D." stood for "mentally deficient." Then again, I've known a few who could
wear the label of "mentally deranged.")
Karen C./KY
LoriS
I think here, it's just a matter of laziness...if we waited for
them to actually sign all of the reports that we type, we would
wait a long time... therefore, we print the copies, and make
sure they get to the chart ASAP, and they others will have to
wait...
HOWEVER, if they are OR's or Discharge Summaries, then the
original Must be signed, no if's, and's, or but's. It's just
the letters and follow-up notes that can go to chart without
being read.
Lori
You haven't seen Canada 'til you've seen Halifax!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cruelette
>Thoughts on the subject of including the phrase dictated but not read to
>prevent the doc from being held liable for a mistake in the transcribed not,
>this does not mean that the transcriptionist would be held liable either.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>
"Dictated but not read" when they're going to be out of town. This doesn't
hold me or my subcontractors liable in any manner. The physician is, as always,
solely responsible for the content of his transcripts and correspondence.
>
>
>
>
>
Cruelette
>>Are the physicians that ignorant that they think they are getting away with
>>something with a simple stamp?
>
>Yep, it does appear that some are that ignorant. (I've often thought that
>"M.D." stood for "mentally deficient." Then again, I've known a few who
>could
>wear the label of "mentally deranged.")
>
>Karen C./KY
>
>So, you're inferring it's a breeze to sail through med school? I think we
both know better, now don't we?
>
>
>
>
>
KCunnin502
(Cruelette) writes:
>>So, you're inferring it's a breeze to sail through med school? I think we
>both know better, now don't we?
Nope, not inferring it's a breeze to sail through med school, at all. What I
was implying was that some of the docs for whom I've worked in the past seemed
to be ones where "mad scientist" would have been a very appropriate label!
Karen C./KY