Suzanne V Blackley1, Valerie D Schubert2, Foster R Goss3, Wasim Al Assad4, Pamela M Garabedian5, Li Zhou6. 1. Clinical and Quality Analysis, Information Systems, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: sblackley@partners.org. 2. Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Clinical and Quality Analysis, Information Systems, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Speech recognition (SR) is increasingly used directly by clinicians for electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Its usability and effect on quality and efficiency versus other documentation methods remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study usability and quality of documentation with SR versus typing. DESIGN: In this controlled observational study, each subject participated in two of five simulated outpatient scenarios. Sessions were recorded with Morae® usability software. Two notes were documented into the EHR per encounter (one dictated, one typed) in randomized order. Participants were interviewed about each method's perceived advantages and disadvantages. Demographics and documentation habits were collected via survey. Data collection occurred between January 8 and February 8, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from February through September of 2019. SETTING: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Ten physicians who had used SR for at least six months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Documentation time, word count, vocabulary size, number of errors, number of corrections and quality (clarity, completeness, concision, information sufficiency and prioritization). RESULTS: Dictated notes were longer than typed notes (320.6 vs. 180.8 words; p = 0.004) with more unique words (170.9 vs. 120.4; p = 0.01). Documentation time was similar between methods, with dictated notes taking slightly less time to complete than typed notes. Typed notes had more uncorrected errors per note than dictated notes (2.9 vs. 1.5), although most were minor misspellings. Dictated notes had a higher mean quality score (7.7 vs. 6.6; p = 0.04), were more complete and included more sufficient information. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants felt that SR saves them time, increases their efficiency and allows them to quickly document more relevant details. Quality analysis supports the perception that SR allows for more detailed notes, but whether dictation is objectively faster than typing remains unclear, and participants described some scenarios where typing is still preferred. Dictation can be effective for creating comprehensive documentation, especially when physicians like and feel comfortable using SR. Research is needed to further improve integration of SR with EHR systems and assess its impact on clinical practice, workflows, provider and patient experience, and costs.
IMPORTANCE: Speech recognition (SR) is increasingly used directly by clinicians for electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Its usability and effect on quality and efficiency versus other documentation methods remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study usability and quality of documentation with SR versus typing. DESIGN: In this controlled observational study, each subject participated in two of five simulated outpatient scenarios. Sessions were recorded with Morae® usability software. Two notes were documented into the EHR per encounter (one dictated, one typed) in randomized order. Participants were interviewed about each method's perceived advantages and disadvantages. Demographics and documentation habits were collected via survey. Data collection occurred between January 8 and February 8, 2019, and data analysis was conducted from February through September of 2019. SETTING: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Ten physicians who had used SR for at least six months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Documentation time, word count, vocabulary size, number of errors, number of corrections and quality (clarity, completeness, concision, information sufficiency and prioritization). RESULTS: Dictated notes were longer than typed notes (320.6 vs. 180.8 words; p = 0.004) with more unique words (170.9 vs. 120.4; p = 0.01). Documentation time was similar between methods, with dictated notes taking slightly less time to complete than typed notes. Typed notes had more uncorrected errors per note than dictated notes (2.9 vs. 1.5), although most were minor misspellings. Dictated notes had a higher mean quality score (7.7 vs. 6.6; p = 0.04), were more complete and included more sufficient information. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants felt that SR saves them time, increases their efficiency and allows them to quickly document more relevant details. Quality analysis supports the perception that SR allows for more detailed notes, but whether dictation is objectively faster than typing remains unclear, and participants described some scenarios where typing is still preferred. Dictation can be effective for creating comprehensive documentation, especially when physicians like and feel comfortable using SR. Research is needed to further improve integration of SR with EHR systems and assess its impact on clinical practice, workflows, provider and patient experience, and costs.
Authors: Oliver T Nguyen; Kea Turner; Nate C Apathy; Tanja Magoc; Karim Hanna; Lisa J Merlo; Christopher A Harle; Lindsay A Thompson; Eta S Berner; Sue S Feldman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lauren A Peccoralo; Carly A Kaplan; Robert H Pietrzak; Dennis S Charney; Jonathan A Ripp Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497