271–274 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for referrals.
The only way to get reasonably accurate results with this is to have two surgeons do completely separate diagnostics in a double-blind where neither they nor the patient knows which one is going to be performing the surgery. That seems unworkable at scale.
Internists, paths, triage, GP, trauma do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very strong relationship between experience (number of procs performed) and outcomes. High-volume is almost always beetter. This may of course favour unnecessary ops...)
Yes, I think this was particularly against the grain because mothers are commonly told to look for a doctor/practice who does not resort to a C-section right away, and judge this by the number of C-sections a doctor/practice performs.
Look to c-sec vs. vag deliveries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was fresh out of a school I worked in a call center for a while. One of the most important metrics (and everything you did was measured) was the average length of each call. So it was common practice, when you got cases that basically were going to be long calls or ones you probably couldn't actually resolve (e.g., "I want the service back on but cannot pay"), to deliberately upset the customers so that they w…
I worked in a call center, as well, but they didn’t prioritize call length as a metric/KPI. Their number one KPI was “first call resolution”, meaning even if it took an hour as long as the problem was resolved the call was considered a success. I feel like it was a much healthier way to measure call center performance.
It is far better when call length is not a KPI. I would never go back.
IMO, if call length is a KPI, it's a key indicator that the company isn't willing to hire enough agents and is trying to apply pressure to shorten calls for purposes of coverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds great! I'm reminded of https://xkcd.com/810/
Getting sent the manual doesn't sound that great to me.