Settings and activity
36 results found
-
10 votes
Kyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
62 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
121 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
23 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
295 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
86 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kyle Robbins
commented
This is incredibly important, and it is honestly absurd that this is being treated as a feature request instead of a bug.
When a device is already in use, we cannot simply create another device or move the patient to a different room. We have to reschedule the appointment. These are some of our most expensive treatments for some of our most valuable patients, so this is not a minor inconvenience. It creates real operational and financial consequences.
There is no reasonable argument for this not to be classified as a bug. I appreciate that you may want to allow users the ability to intentionally double-book if they choose to, but that should absolutely not be the default behavior. At minimum, the system should trigger a clear warning and require explicit approval before allowing a conflicting booking.
I can at least understand why room double-booking might be permitted in some cases. But when a device is being used as intended, there is no justification for allowing silent double-booking without an alert.
To be clear, this is happening when scheduling directly from the calendar view. We have 10 devices across multiple locations and multiple front desk staff. Expecting every staff member to manually cross-check device availability before booking is not practical, and it defeats the purpose of having the device functionality in the first place.
I keep being told there is another booking workflow that does account for this conflict. That only reinforces the point: if one workflow recognizes the conflict and the most common booking workflow does not, then this is a flaw that should be fixed, not a training issue that should be pushed back onto customers.
This is the kind of issue that can cost your customers thousands of dollars over something that feels like a basic safeguard. That is exactly why it is so baffling, and frankly frustrating, that this continues to be dismissed as anything other than a bug.
Kyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
96 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
-
65 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
29 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
31 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
27 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
141 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
125 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
340 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
1,021 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
-
200 votesKyle Robbins
supported this idea
·
This feels like a no-brainer. Not only does it waste precious time for our medical director, but also creates a huge potential liability if things get missed. And as a busines owner, the only way I can check is to go through every single record.
With 85+ voted & the incredibly important nature of this request, I would hope this is prioritized ASAP.