I currently do BOTH....
Posted By: LoriMT on 2009-01-13
In Reply to: radMT vs med rec MT sm - radMTfor15years
I have 20+ years experience with a little of everything, including acute care, rad, clinic, ER, cardiology, etc., etc., etc. I am currently FT with 25% time spent on radiology and 75% time spent on acute care. I can pull more lines in my 25% time on radiology than I can on my 75% time in acute care. There are several reasons for this: (1) Radiology usually requires very little to no reference of past medical records or access to the database. To the contrary, in medical records, I am always having to reference a new drug, instrument, procedure, etc., find a physician, change a work type, etc. (2) Radiology is very repetitive and there are generally far less radiologists. In medical records, especially if you are working for a "training" hospital, you are constantly faced with new physicians, with thousands in the database for larger hospitals. (3) There seem to be many more ESL's in medical records/acute care than radiology. There is more....but I am working ON ACUTE CARE right now, so do not really have time to think. In the past, a very experienced Transcriptionist that I looked up to and admired told me that acute care is "where the money is at." But...now, about 15 years later, I look back at what she said and think she must have just been a little "nuts," or maybe wanted to keep me off of her account? I CAN TRANSCRIBE 1200 LINES ON RADIOLOGY IN APPROXIMATELY 4-5 HOURS. THE SAME LINES ON ACUTE CARE TAKE ME 7-8 HOURS. I am currently seeking a 100% radiology statutory position, for obvious reasons.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
