These medical transcriptionists do not have to produce polished documents, nor do any creative forms of writing. The expectation from medical transcriptions is that they have to produce an accurate and clean transcription of the dictation or source document. The work is very challenging because in the real hospital environment, dictations are sometimes imperfect, and it is up to the medical transcriptionist to have sound knowledge of medical terms and be alert to write accurately.

When your employer asks about your religion and your thoughts on several occasions such as Eid’l Fitr or Good Friday, you should never answer such queries. Because these employers would seek employees that won’t go to such occasions, thus they want people who can work even on such special occasions. Even if the issue is not necessarily on the religion of the applicant, it boils down to whether or not a person is willing to sacrifice his personal life for the sake of working for an extra day. When the HR person asks you about it, tell them that it is an inappropriate question, and tell them to ask him or her to carry on with other questions instead.

Corporate America, where the Male population dominates the Forbes List of TOP 50 CEOs also trickles down to comparable industries such as the Medical and Health Care Industry. For the series of posts for this month, we will tackle several questions an employer should not ask an applicant on issues such as gender, and other factors such as disability and religion. America has been always regarded as the land of the free and has the highest tolerance to other people. But in the workplace, it seems to be a little different from what they are preaching, most especially these human resource developers – seeking efficiency more than other traits in a person, but the said traits/ issues should not factor in according to several laws and also in the Amendments of the United States of America.

When an employer asks a woman on her plans in giving birth in the near future, this too is a major no-no. they would want to hire people that are efficient enough and would become more economical for them to have an output rather than giving a person a paid maternity leave instead.

First of all, it is down right discriminatory since it is an essential part of a female being, and would entail her freedom over her own
body; and secondly, on the basis of disability, where there is an assumption that disabled people cannot give output as what their
capable counterparts can offer. They can be sued for doing such acts.

I have tackled a form of incapacity, which is pregnancy, but let us delve further on the general scope of incapacitation. Sure an employer can ask questions on what you are incapacitated of, and your requirements, but they cannot ask any other questions regarding that matter.

Questions pertaining to these matters involve such discrimination on to these incapacitated people. And would mean that they aren’t fit for the job that they are applying for. Although it is logical that some cannot do physical jobs due to their condition, other jobs, requiring technical skills doesn’t limit incapacitated people from doing their best and producing quality output.

If you tell the physician your concerns in a manner that would not hurt his pride or would insult him, you will be able to come in to an understanding in a particular situation.

Aggressive communication would only lead to bickering and would create conflict between two parties. But you must have to take into consideration the most important party involved – the patient.

An example would be this:

On one of her evening shifts, Nurse Sally Stevens, an R.N. with 17 years of nursing experience, was caring for a new patient, a 46-year-old female diabetic, who was suffering from tremors due to a bout of Lithium toxicity. After an i.v. was started, the patient, Miss Hawkins, developed some kidney complications, prompting doctors to bring in a renal specialist. After reviewing her charts, the specialist ordered an i.v. containing dextrose.

Knowing that the dextrose could negatively affect her patient’s diabetic condition, Nurse Sally voiced her concerns. In a non-aggressive tone, Nurse Sally said, “Doctor, Miss Hawkins’ blood sugar was 315 at 4pm. I noticed that you’ve changed her i.v. fluids to Dextrose. Do you want to change the i.v. fluids?”

Because of Nurse Sally’s ability to communicate effectively, Miss Hawkins received the best possible medical care.

Taken from: http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive,-Assertive-Pushback-For-Nurses&id=984220

It is quite obvious that in the workplace, especially when there’s an inherent dominancy over one field in a certain workplace, pride and prejudice always come into play. In the medical setting to tailor-fit it to this blog, it is quite predictable that there would always be conflict between physicians and nurses.

This is where positive, effective communication comes in. we know that there is a hierarchy in the workplace, but for nurses, there too is an effective solution to air out your concerns for the betterment of your patients as well.

A worker’s compensation benefit is paid to an employee that has a job-related injury or illness. These benefits can be paid by state or federal worker’s compensation agencies, insurance companies or employers on behalf of the employees.

It is important to note that the disability payments from private sources – such as insurance benefits or private pension – do not affect one’s social security disability benefits. However, other public disability benefits such as worker’s compensation may reduce your social security benefits. The other public disability payments that affect your social security benefits are those paid by the state, federal, or local governments for disabling job-related medical conditions.

Here’s some more facts on that San Francisco mandatory paid leave law, the first law of its kind in the country—local, state or federal—to mandate that employers have to give their employees paid time off for sick leave.

And speaking of the facts—the facts of the San Fran law are that companies must give their employees at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours that they work—for an ultimate total of between 40 to 72 hours of paid sick leave, depending on how large the employer is.

No matter the size of the employer, however, the law might be creating such a strain for them that the city Supervisor, Sean Elsbernd, has said that he is planning a proposal that would ease up the law for the time being on employers in the city. The reason is that the city itself has not figured out how to enforce the new requirements, even though the law is already in effect. A big issue is regarding employers that are located outside of the city, but have employees working in San Francisco on projects and such.

Elsbernd’s proposal is still not approved, so employers in San Fran should still be keeping track of how many hours their employees are working and how much sick time they are building up. Even if the proposal is passed, in fact, employers will still need to do that. What the proposal would do is make it so that employers would not have to pay employees for their time off until June 5, and they would not be liable for any issues or financial penalties until June 5.

Of course, if employers are proven to be completely neglecting the law, or circumventing it in any way, this grace period would not hold for them.

By: Mark Hathaway
Source: blog.laborlawcenter.com

The new paid sick-leave law—as these laws seem to be called now—was passed by the city’s voters back in November 2006. About 61 percent of the voting population OKed the law. The law as it was passed mandates that all employers must give their employees paid sick leave if they work within the city.

As with many of these new labor laws that seem to be getting passed—such as new health care requirements for employers or the increases of the minimum wage (or even these living wage laws that are getting passed in such places as Maryland)—small employers like us often say that these laws will cost them the most, that such laws will take their toll on small employers and make it harder for them to hire new employees, or even keep the employees that we already have.

The new law in San Francisco is estimated to be affected more than 100,000 businesses in the city limits, but we cannot know how many of those businesses are small employers who are straining to meet the requirements of the law. And I am not here to fathom a guess, nor will I complain or take sides in the issue in San Francisco. Remember, folks, I am here just to report the news and give you insights on the laws that you might not find somewhere else, and hopefully I am accomplishing my goals. If not, let me hear it!

By: Mark Hathaway
Source: blog.laborlawcenter.com