Literature DB >> 11302062

Radiology report production times: voice recognition vs. transcription.

B Gale1, Y Safriel, A Lukban, J Kalowitz, J Fleischer, D Gordon.   

Abstract

Computer-based voice-recognition software has many potential advantages in producing reports of radiology procedures. Using voice-recognition systems, however, necessitates increased involvement of the radiologist in the process of producing the report. The radiologist, previously responsible only for recording a report onto tape and ensuring the integrity of the final report now becomes obligated to interact with the computer and to ensure the integrity of the transcription process as well as the accuracy of the final report. Two attending radiologists and one first-year radiology resident at an academic medical center timed the production of reports using both the voice recognition system and tape transcription of reports of plain films (n = 27), mammograms (n = 25), and GI/GU exams (n = 17). In addition, the taped dictations were transcribed and then corrected by the physicians. The additional correction time (determined as an average) was added to the tape times to produce a "corrected" tape time. Paired T-Test procedures were used to determine if pairs of readings (voice recognition vs. corrected tape transcription) differed in length of time. In addition, the data was stratified into three groupings--plain film, mammography, and GI/GU--in order to assess for differences between modalities. The length of time required to produce a radiology report using the commercial radiology voice recognition system employed at our center is significantly longer than that required by the traditional corrected tape transcription system. One motivation to use a voice recognition system is the cost savings achieved by eliminating transcriptionists and replacing them with the radiologist using the voice recognition system. In our institution this cost savings is estimated to be $100,000 annually. This apparent cost savings is reduced by the cost of the lost productivity of the radiologist. Compared to tape transcription, our data demonstrate a significant increase in the amount of time necessary for radiologists to produce a radiology report when using the voice recognition system currently employed in our hospital. While it is likely that future systems will require less extra time, this factor needs to be accounted for when departments consider using such systems to replace transcriptionists with radiologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11302062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Manage        ISSN: 0198-7097


  13 in total

1.  Impact of electronic signature on radiology report turnaround time.

Authors:  Luigi Lepanto
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Impact of PACS and voice-recognition reporting on the education of radiology residents.

Authors:  Antonio J Gutierrez; Mark E Mullins; Robert A Novelline
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Conceptual approach for the design of radiology reporting interfaces: the talking template.

Authors:  Chris L Sistrom
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 4.  [Speech recognition: impact on workflow and report availability].

Authors:  C Glaser; C Trumm; S Nissen-Meyer; M Francke; B Küttner; M Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Improving the utility of speech recognition through error detection.

Authors:  Kimberly Voll; Stella Atkins; Bruce Forster
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Picture, archiving and communication system in the Italian NHS: a primer on diffusion and evaluation analysis.

Authors:  Luca Buccoliero; Stefano Calciolari; Marta Marsilio; Elisa Mattavelli
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Immediate and sustained benefits of a "total" implementation of speech recognition reporting.

Authors:  J L Hart; A McBride; D Blunt; P Gishen; N Strickland
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Improving Radiology Report Quality by Rapidly Notifying Radiologist of Report Errors.

Authors:  Matthew J Minn; Arash R Zandieh; Ross W Filice
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Measuring Consultant Radiologist workload: method and results from a national survey.

Authors:  Adrian P Brady
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2011-04-21

Review 10.  The effectiveness of service delivery initiatives at improving patients' waiting times in clinical radiology departments: a systematic review.

Authors:  B Olisemeke; Y F Chen; K Hemming; A Girling
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.