OBJECTIVE: We have implemented computerized speech recognition in a high-volume clinical setting using a newly developed commercial software system. This paper compares the performance of the computerized system with conventional transcription during a trial week followed by 3 months of routine clinical use. CONCLUSION: The speech recognition system was used for 97% of the cases during the trial week and 87% of cases during the months of continuous use. For a similar mixture of cases, no change occurred in the length of reports after introduction of the computerized system. Speech recognition decreased the time until the report became available by 99% and resulted in a substantial savings in transcription costs. We conclude that speech recognition by computer is practical in a high-volume clinical implementation.
OBJECTIVE: We have implemented computerized speech recognition in a high-volume clinical setting using a newly developed commercial software system. This paper compares the performance of the computerized system with conventional transcription during a trial week followed by 3 months of routine clinical use. CONCLUSION: The speech recognition system was used for 97% of the cases during the trial week and 87% of cases during the months of continuous use. For a similar mixture of cases, no change occurred in the length of reports after introduction of the computerized system. Speech recognition decreased the time until the report became available by 99% and resulted in a substantial savings in transcription costs. We conclude that speech recognition by computer is practical in a high-volume clinical implementation.
Authors: Edward C Callaway; Clifford F Sweet; Eliot Siegel; John M Reiser; Douglas P Beall Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2002-04-30 Impact factor: 4.056
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