Tobias Hodgson1, Enrico Coiera1. 1. Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, L6 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia tobias.hodgson@students.mq.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review literature assessing the impact of speech recognition (SR) on clinical documentation. METHODS: Studies published prior to December 2014 reporting clinical documentation using SR were identified by searching Scopus, Compendex and Inspect, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Outcome variables analyzed included dictation and editing time, document turnaround time (TAT), SR accuracy, error rates per document, and economic benefit. Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria from a pool of 441. RESULTS: Most studies compared SR to dictation and transcription (DT) in radiology, and heterogeneity across studies was high. Document editing time increased using SR compared to DT in four of six studies (+1876.47% to -16.50%). Dictation time similarly increased in three of five studies (+91.60% to -25.00%). TAT consistently improved using SR compared to DT (16.41% to 82.34%); across all studies the improvement was 0.90% per year. SR accuracy was reported in ten studies (88.90% to 96.00%) and appears to improve 0.03% per year as the technology matured. Mean number of errors per report increased using SR (0.05 to 6.66) compared to DT (0.02 to 0.40). Economic benefits were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: SR is steadily maturing and offers some advantages for clinical documentation. However, evidence supporting the use of SR is weak, and further investigation is required to assess the impact of SR on documentation error types, rates, and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To review literature assessing the impact of speech recognition (SR) on clinical documentation. METHODS: Studies published prior to December 2014 reporting clinical documentation using SR were identified by searching Scopus, Compendex and Inspect, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Outcome variables analyzed included dictation and editing time, document turnaround time (TAT), SR accuracy, error rates per document, and economic benefit. Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria from a pool of 441. RESULTS: Most studies compared SR to dictation and transcription (DT) in radiology, and heterogeneity across studies was high. Document editing time increased using SR compared to DT in four of six studies (+1876.47% to -16.50%). Dictation time similarly increased in three of five studies (+91.60% to -25.00%). TAT consistently improved using SR compared to DT (16.41% to 82.34%); across all studies the improvement was 0.90% per year. SR accuracy was reported in ten studies (88.90% to 96.00%) and appears to improve 0.03% per year as the technology matured. Mean number of errors per report increased using SR (0.05 to 6.66) compared to DT (0.02 to 0.40). Economic benefits were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS:SR is steadily maturing and offers some advantages for clinical documentation. However, evidence supporting the use of SR is weak, and further investigation is required to assess the impact of SR on documentation error types, rates, and clinical outcomes.
Authors: John A Pezzullo; Glenn A Tung; Jeffrey M Rogg; Lawrence M Davis; Jeffrey M Brody; William W Mayo-Smith Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Maree Johnson; Samuel Lapkin; Vanessa Long; Paula Sanchez; Hanna Suominen; Jim Basilakis; Linda Dawson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Kevin J Lybarger; Mari Ostendorf; Eve Riskin; Thomas H Payne; Andrew A White; Meliha Yetisgen Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Maxim Topaz; Adam Schaffer; Kenneth H Lai; Zfania Tom Korach; Jonathan Einbinder; Li Zhou Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Faiha Fareez; Tishya Parikh; Christopher Wavell; Saba Shahab; Meghan Chevalier; Scott Good; Isabella De Blasi; Rafik Rhouma; Christopher McMahon; Jean-Paul Lam; Thomas Lo; Christopher W Smith Journal: Sci Data Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 8.501
Authors: Jayant V Rajan; Juliana Moura; Gato Gourley; Karina Kiso; Alexandre Sizilio; Ana Maria Cortez; Lee W Riley; Maria Amelia Veras; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.796