 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. Marymount Hospital8/17/2000
signed. The appellant was rated as under average when compared to other new employees in the department.
After this evaluation, the appellant's probationary period was extended for thirty days. The evaluation contains a notation that the appellant was to submit a list of areas to Ms. Brenner on which she needed assistance. On December 30, 1996, another meeting was scheduled so that Ms. Brenner and Ms. Herbert could make the schedule for the next thirty days.
On February 5, 1997, the appellant received her final review from both Ms. Brenner and from Miriam Hammond, director of human resources. On this evaluation, the appellant was rated as poor compared to other employees who had been trained in the department.
The appellant received the following marks:
ability to follow and understand directions poor
quality of work fair to poor
quantity of work poor
ability to fulfill job requirements poor
attitude and cooperation good
potentialities poor
The evaluation stated that the appellant's lack of thorough knowledge of coding foundations and the lack of the ability to apply basic coding principles prohibited her from meeting the standards set for the position. The appellant was found to have difficulty understanding instructions. On the evaluation, the following comment was made:
Barbara's education as an ART and exposure to the field of medicine through her prior work experience qualify her for the position but she is unable to progress as one would expect for a person with her background. New graduates who have come in to the position in the past with far less hospital experience have progressed more quickly than Barbara. Also Tri-C Medical Records students who have not completed the program have shown more proficiency in their clinical rotations through the department.
Attached to the evaluation is a list of seven different types of charts the appellant was required to code. Under each area there is a statement of the standard to be achieved and the standards actually achieved by the appellant. The standards to be achieved varied between 90% and 99%, but in no instance did the appellant meet that standard: 1) for Correct Visit the standard is 99% accuracy and out of five categories listed, the appellant met the standard in only two; 2) for Admissions List the standard is 95% accuracy and the appellant achieved a 94.28% accuracy rating; 3) for ROP List the appellant achieved an 84% accuracy, but instead of using the standard one minute per chart, the appellant needed 9 minutes 20 seconds; 4) for Emergency Room the evaluation stated that the standard time to code each chart was 4 minutes and the appellant needed 19 minutes and 20 seconds for each chart, overall in this category only 70% of the cases were charted correctly in all areas; 5) for Endoscopy the appellant required 20 minutes per chart instead of the standard 4 minutes and of the six sub-categories listed in this area the appellant's accuracy was not the standard 95%, but rather varied between 33% and 87.5%; 6) for Ambulatory Surgery the appellant required 27 minutes to code each chart instead of 10 minutes, the accuracy required was between 90 and 95%, but in the six sub-categories, the appellant's accuracy varied between 29% and 80%; and, 7) for Inpatient the appellant needed 86 minutes to code an obstetric & newborn chart instead of 20 minutes and she needed 56 minutes to code a surgery chart instead of 30 minutes. Again, the standards for the sub-categories varied between 90 and 95% and the appellant's accuracy varied from 5.8% to 88.2%.
At the meeting, the appellant was inform
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|