Skip to Main Content
Fredwin Software (Demo) Ideas Portal
Categories Efficiencies
Created by Guest
Created on Jun 12, 2024

Update to the Online Referral Form to Provide Clarity at Multi Practitioner Schools

When there are multiple practitioners of one type are assigned to one school, the online referral form notification can cause confusion (once someone accepts, the others just see it greyed out and often reach out for clarity if they wanted to referral too) In addition, the school has generally already discussed the student with one practitioner before adding them to the system, and sometimes the wrong practitioner accepts which CCT needs to correct and explain. CCT discussed this at a team meeting and is wondering if we could add, for clarity for both customers and our practitioners;

  • An option for the school to select a practitioner from a drop down based on who is linked to their school, (e.g. something along the lines of "If you have already discussed this referral with one of your practitioners, please select their name from this list. Otherwise, the referral will be offered to all linked practitioners of that service type)

  • For all practitioners that see the referral in their dashboard, it could show accepted and add the practitioners name (e.g. Accepted-Susan Smith) so they can see who on the team accepted the referral

  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Nov 10, 2025

    This issue is still continuing this year - I explained following the thread below how Monarch autonotifies the entire PX team of that service type, but within our discussion it was again mentioned how it would be great if the referral could be assigned at the time of creation:

    > I added those students, so I apologize if I entered something incorrectly, it was my first time referring students on an ehelper account.

    >

    > Both students are native English speakers and do not need bilingual evaluations. I will be completing them.

    > I will double check their information to make sure it reflects their English status. So sorry for the confusion!!

    >

    > Thanks for your message!