Kevin J Lybarger1, Mari Ostendorf1, Eve Riskin1, Thomas H Payne2, Andrew A White2, Meliha Yetisgen3. 1. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. 3. Department of Biomedical & Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinician progress notes are an important record for care and communication, but there is a perception that electronic notes take too long to write and may not accurately reflect the patient encounter, threatening quality of care. Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has the potential to improve clinical documentation process; however, ASR inaccuracy and editing time are barriers to wider use. We hypothesized that automatic text processing technologies could decrease editing time and improve note quality. To inform the development of these technologies, we studied how physicians create clinical notes using ASR and analyzed note content that is revised or added during asynchronous editing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a corpus of 649 dictated clinical notes from 9 physicians. Notes were dictated during rounds to portable devices, automatically transcribed, and edited later at the physician's convenience. Comparing ASR transcripts and the final edited notes, we identified the word sequences edited by physicians and categorized the edits by length and content. RESULTS: We found that 40% of the words in the final notes were added by physicians while editing: 6% corresponded to short edits associated with error correction and format changes, and 34% were associated with longer edits. Short error correction edits that affect note accuracy are estimated to be less than 3% of the words in the dictated notes. Longer edits primarily involved insertion of material associated with clinical data or assessment and plans. The longer edits improve note completeness; some could be handled with verbalized commands in dictation. CONCLUSION: Process interventions to reduce ASR documentation burden, whether related to technology or the dictation/editing workflow, should apply a portfolio of solutions to address all categories of required edits. Improved processes could reduce an important barrier to broader use of ASR by clinicians and improve note quality. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: Clinician progress notes are an important record for care and communication, but there is a perception that electronic notes take too long to write and may not accurately reflect the patient encounter, threatening quality of care. Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has the potential to improve clinical documentation process; however, ASR inaccuracy and editing time are barriers to wider use. We hypothesized that automatic text processing technologies could decrease editing time and improve note quality. To inform the development of these technologies, we studied how physicians create clinical notes using ASR and analyzed note content that is revised or added during asynchronous editing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a corpus of 649 dictated clinical notes from 9 physicians. Notes were dictated during rounds to portable devices, automatically transcribed, and edited later at the physician's convenience. Comparing ASR transcripts and the final edited notes, we identified the word sequences edited by physicians and categorized the edits by length and content. RESULTS: We found that 40% of the words in the final notes were added by physicians while editing: 6% corresponded to short edits associated with error correction and format changes, and 34% were associated with longer edits. Short error correction edits that affect note accuracy are estimated to be less than 3% of the words in the dictated notes. Longer edits primarily involved insertion of material associated with clinical data or assessment and plans. The longer edits improve note completeness; some could be handled with verbalized commands in dictation. CONCLUSION: Process interventions to reduce ASR documentation burden, whether related to technology or the dictation/editing workflow, should apply a portfolio of solutions to address all categories of required edits. Improved processes could reduce an important barrier to broader use of ASR by clinicians and improve note quality. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
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: Christine A Sinsky; Rachel Willard-Grace; Andrew M Schutzbank; Thomas A Sinsky; David Margolius; Thomas Bodenheimer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Yaa A Kumah-Crystal; Claude J Pirtle; Harrison M Whyte; Edward S Goode; Shilo H Anders; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Siddhartha Yadav; Noora Kazanji; Narayan K C; Sudarshan Paudel; John Falatko; Sandor Shoichet; Michael Maddens; Michael A Barnes Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 4.497
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