Dream Factory by TruBridge Ideas Portal
I wanted to raise two important concerns that are impacting system improvement efforts and overall user experience:
There appears to be a disconnect between the help desk, training (recommended workflows), and development (Dream Factory) teams. The feedback loop is broken—issues identified by end users- notifying the help desk and temporary workarounds provided by frontline support - may not be congruent with the normal workflows of those departments, are not consistently making their way to the development team- Dream Factory in a structured or visible way.
This disconnect leads to:
Redundant issue reporting across sites
Delayed resolution timelines
Frustration from users who feel their input doesn’t result in lasting change
Creating a clear and traceable feedback pipeline between these teams would significantly improve response time, coordination, and system development.
While I’ve submitted a suggestion through Dream Factory, it seems the responsibility to initiate improvements falls solely on end users. What’s unclear is whether:
Similar help desk situations from other hospitals are being aggregated to the applicable Dream Factory requests, and
These collective themes are being strategically prioritized in development planning.
This presents a missed opportunity. By cross-referencing recurring pain points across multiple sites, the system could evolve more proactively and effectively. Creating a more transparent, strategic approach to collecting and prioritizing user suggestions could significantly improve the relevance and impact of system updates.
The lack of communication between ANY layer within TruBridge seems to be lacking. I was optimistic that the AGILE scheme would help this, but it became apparent at conference that the silos still exist. For example: you have an employee looking at revamping Clinical History, but then that employee knows nothing about Image Titles and the role they play in Clinical History. And another person is in charge of Reports and Attachments, which is another extension of Image Titles. Image Titles is huge and connects so much in the chart these days, from Faxing (Comm Center), to Patient Connect, to Registration, to Clinical History, to Reports and Attachments, and don't forget the "Alerts" in the chart. All these pieces are segmented when it comes to Image Titles, no wonder we have to keep recreating the wheel of Image Titles functionality in all of these spaces. The functionality of Image Titles concerns me as we move to add our clinic to Thrive, which would exponentially increase the amount of Scanned Images, and the ability to find these Scanned Images efficiently in the chart.
I fully agree with everything Jenna wrote above.
Laura Colbert