A Rant Against Technology

[Peter Dodge]

The following message was sent out on the optcom mailing list last month.
how many of us secretly (or not so secretly..) harbor these same feelings?
(the formatting has been kept the same as the original email.) Date: 02/15/2001 12:55:54 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Eagereye
To: Optcomlist@optcom5.com

Hello List:

I'm practicing my typing (that's my excuse for starting this post) and
thought I'd comment about the recent posts dealing with how to more
efficiently transfer the schedule for the day onto a palm pilot. The postee
says this is to review the schedule and the patient names for the purpose of learning the names at lunch and other reasons. A number of listees responded with technical suggestions and the matter is now more or less resolved. Until now.

My comment is a bit of a rail against technology. The way I do the
aforementioned task is to have a staff member hand write and make one carbon
copy (faster than using the copier) of the daily schedule. One goes in my
exam room and the other on my desk.

At the end of the day I review the patient names with each record as I
dictate personalized PS's that wind up on a form letter. This probably only
takes a few more minutes, if that, to having typed the day's patients on an
inefficient keyboard (or an efficient one). I don't own a palm pilot.

Next, I'd like to address another issue: that of patients making their own
appointments on the Internet so that the staff is freed up for "more
efficient" tasks. I can't believe this when I hear it. With the competition
today, it is a blessing to have the opportunity to have a well-trained staff
person answering the phone. In fact, I despise the advent of voice mail and
of the standard practice exemplified by the "pernicious purveyors of
technofluff" of the ubiquitous message, "DUE TO UNUSUALLY HEAVY DEMAND, WE
SUGGEST YOU CALL BACK LATER." If these companies had to give a damn, they
would provide service for "UNUSUAL DEMAND" which judging by the number of
times I call is not at all unusual.

I'd like to close with an example of technofluff. Optometric Management
recently had an article promoting the use of one of the major on-line Rx
ordering sites. Since this site was offering a $50 discount on the first
use, we tried it. The OM article admitted that the time to order over the
Internet was 12 minutes vs. 5 minutes for fax or telephone alternatives.
Given the incessant mantra for efficiency, why would anyone other than
perhaps an investor in the Internet venture do this?

Still, in a moment of what Coleridge called "the willing suspension of
disbelief" I had Penny set this up. It probably took her over an hour, but
I'm willing not to count that cost. We used this service twice and stopped
on the third attempt. It took about 20 minutes each time. More problems
than there are annoying vision plan rules. On the third order (and we had to
call for help) we were told by the site to just fax the order to them! Penny
told them that we were already using faxes to submit directly to our
lab-thank you very much.

But it doesn't end there. When the bill came for the first two orders, it
came with two dollar amounts without any reference to the invoices. In case
you don't get it, this means there was no way to compare the amounts on the
statement to the invoice. Fortunately, with only two invoices and a
competent staff person whom I trained to check statements against invoices,
it wasn't difficult to figure out that the charges were greater than the
invoices. This necessitated another phone call. It seems that we were billed
twice for the same invoice. We were told we ordered two sets of spectacle
lenses. Yeah, right, for the same patient. To the positive, the site gave us
the credit. And we will get the $50 promised deduction. But it will be long
time before we try this again.

To those of you who are the first to embrace technology, I say thank you for
what you go through to advance the hi-tech frontier. I prefer, if I may
paraphrase Milton, to believe "they also serve who only sit and wait, and
wait."

If you believe people like me are beyond help, pray for me. If your not a
tehnoaddict, I say "Just say No!"
At least until you have no choice.

As for me, I am glad that I lived in a time when you could still make a phone
call and get a live person at the other end. And where if you were in an
educational meeting or at the dinner table, there was no cell phone to go
off.
And, since I'm talking about manners here, where people under 35 do not refer
to others by first name without the courtesy of asking if this is okay.

How to I say "The End" after this. I'll try,

The End

Peter Dodge
(He who asked for it)

[Brian McPartland]

I'm with you. I remained very nonplussed by the techno revolution. If I should decided to exit retirement and re-enter Optometry....I will go Low Tech all the way. That's right...a completely PAPERED office with real people answering the phone and talking...that's right, actually talking with patients! And patients will love me for it.
:-)
Brian

The following message was sent out on the optcom mailing list last month.
how many of us secretly (or not so secretly..) harbor these same feelings?
(the formatting has been kept the same as the original email.) Date: 02/15/2001 12:55:54 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Eagereye
To: Optcomlist@optcom5.com

Hello List:

I'm practicing my typing (that's my excuse for starting this post) and
thought I'd comment about the recent posts dealing with how to more
efficiently transfer the schedule for the day onto a palm pilot. The postee
says this is to review the schedule and the patient names for the purpose of learning the names at lunch and other reasons. A number of listees responded with technical suggestions and the matter is now more or less resolved. Until now.

My comment is a bit of a rail against technology. The way I do the
aforementioned task is to have a staff member hand write and make one carbon
copy (faster than using the copier) of the daily schedule. One goes in my
exam room and the other on my desk.

At the end of the day I review the patient names with each record as I
dictate personalized PS's that wind up on a form letter. This probably only
takes a few more minutes, if that, to having typed the day's patients on an
inefficient keyboard (or an efficient one). I don't own a palm pilot.

Next, I'd like to address another issue: that of patients making their own
appointments on the Internet so that the staff is freed up for "more
efficient" tasks. I can't believe this when I hear it. With the competition
today, it is a blessing to have the opportunity to have a well-trained staff
person answering the phone. In fact, I despise the advent of voice mail and
of the standard practice exemplified by the "pernicious purveyors of
technofluff" of the ubiquitous message, "DUE TO UNUSUALLY HEAVY DEMAND, WE
SUGGEST YOU CALL BACK LATER." If these companies had to give a damn, they
would provide service for "UNUSUAL DEMAND" which judging by the number of
times I call is not at all unusual.

I'd like to close with an example of technofluff. Optometric Management
recently had an article promoting the use of one of the major on-line Rx
ordering sites. Since this site was offering a $50 discount on the first
use, we tried it. The OM article admitted that the time to order over the
Internet was 12 minutes vs. 5 minutes for fax or telephone alternatives.
Given the incessant mantra for efficiency, why would anyone other than
perhaps an investor in the Internet venture do this?

Still, in a moment of what Coleridge called "the willing suspension of
disbelief" I had Penny set this up. It probably took her over an hour, but
I'm willing not to count that cost. We used this service twice and stopped
on the third attempt. It took about 20 minutes each time. More problems
than there are annoying vision plan rules. On the third order (and we had to
call for help) we were told by the site to just fax the order to them! Penny
told them that we were already using faxes to submit directly to our
lab-thank you very much.

But it doesn't end there. When the bill came for the first two orders, it
came with two dollar amounts without any reference to the invoices. In case
you don't get it, this means there was no way to compare the amounts on the
statement to the invoice. Fortunately, with only two invoices and a
competent staff person whom I trained to check statements against invoices,
it wasn't difficult to figure out that the charges were greater than the
invoices. This necessitated another phone call. It seems that we were billed
twice for the same invoice. We were told we ordered two sets of spectacle
lenses. Yeah, right, for the same patient. To the positive, the site gave us
the credit. And we will get the $50 promised deduction. But it will be long
time before we try this again.

To those of you who are the first to embrace technology, I say thank you for
what you go through to advance the hi-tech frontier. I prefer, if I may
paraphrase Milton, to believe "they also serve who only sit and wait, and
wait."

If you believe people like me are beyond help, pray for me. If your not a
tehnoaddict, I say "Just say No!"
At least until you have no choice.

As for me, I am glad that I lived in a time when you could still make a phone
call and get a live person at the other end. And where if you were in an
educational meeting or at the dinner table, there was no cell phone to go
off.
And, since I'm talking about manners here, where people under 35 do not refer
to others by first name without the courtesy of asking if this is okay.

How to I say "The End" after this. I'll try,

The End

Peter Dodge
(He who asked for it)