The potential of voice recognition technology in medical record documentation

Review

Authors

  • Hamad Hassan Mohammed Alonayzan KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Talal Sanian Salem Alenezi ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Khalaf Saud Faryhan Alshammari ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Mohammed Saad Bakr Albakr ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Sanad Hamdan Sanad Alshammari ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Saleh Obaid Abdullah Alghadeer ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Nezar Mohammad Mutlaq Alshammari ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Fahad Khalifah Salem Almughamis ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Nuri Rawafa Alanzi ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • ‏Abdullah Ibrahim Hamran ‏KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • Fawaz Ayed Al-Sharari KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • Ahmed Turki Alotaibi KSA, National Guard Health Affairs
  • Awad Shehab B Alanzi KSA, National Guard Health Affairs

Keywords:

Health Record Systems, Electronic Health Records, Patient Care, Review, Ethical Matters

Abstract

Background: Speech recognition (SR) systems have been used in medical reporting for over 20 years, converting spoken words into written text and allowing voice commands. Initially hampered by underdeveloped technology and unsatisfactory recognition error rates, progress has been made in algorithm design, system performance, and technology, with newer approaches emerging. Aim of Work: The objective of this study is to examine existing literature that evaluates the effects of speech recognition (SR) technology on clinical documentation. Methods: Studies conducted before December 2014 that reported clinical documentation employing SR were located by searching Scopus, Compendex and Inspect, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The examined outcome variables consisted of dictation and editing time, document turnaround time (TAT), speech recognition accuracy, mistake rates per document, and economic gain. Results: The majority of research focused on comparing speech recognition (SR) to dictation and transcription (DT) in the field of radiology. There was a significant level of variation across the studies. Document editing time was shown to be significantly longer when utilizing speech recognition (SR) compared to traditional typing (DT) in four out of six tests, with an increase ranging from 1876.47% to -16.50%.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Johnson M Lapkin S Long V et al. . A systematic review of speech recognition technology in health care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 14 (1): 94.

Herman SJ. Speech recognition and the creation of radiology reports. Appl Radiol.2004; 33 (5): 23 – 28.

Lawrence D. Can you hear me now? Voice recognition for the EMR has made big strides, and many say meaningful use requirements will accelerate adoption. Healthcare informatics: the business magazine for information and communication systems. 2009; 26(12).

Neustein A Markowitz JA. Mobile Speech and Advanced Natural Language Solutions. New York: Springer; 2013.

Bliss MF. Speech Recognition for the Health Professions: (using Dragon NaturallySpeaking). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall; 2005.

Madisetti V. Video, Speech, and Audio Signal Processing and Associated Standards. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009.

Paulett JM Langlotz CP. Improving language models for radiology speech recognition. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42 (1): 53 – 58.

Gales M Young S. The application of hidden Markov models in speech recognition. Found Trends Signal Process. 2008; 1 (3): 195 – 304.

Eddy SR. What is a hidden Markov model?Nat Biotech. 2004; 22 (10): 1315 – 1316.

Indurkhya N Damerau FJ. Handbook of Natural Language Processing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012.

Lafferty J McCallum A Pereira FC. Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.; 2001.

Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Int Med. 2009; 151 (4): 264 – 269.

Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull.1968; 70 (4): 213.

Hundt WS Scharnberg O Hold B et al. . Speech processing in radiology. Eur Radiol.1999; 9 (7): 1451 – 1456.

Rana DSH Shepstone G Pilling L Cockburn J Crawford M. Voice recognition for radiology reporting: is it good enough? Clin Radiol. 2005; 60 (11): 1205 – 1212.

Pezzullo JA Tung GA Rogg JM et al. Voice recognition dictation: Radiologist as transcriptionist. J Digital Imag. 2008; 21 (4): 384 – 389.

Mohr DNT Turner DW Pond GR et al. . Speech recognition as a transcription aid: a randomized comparison with standard transcription. JAMIA. 2003; 10 (1): 85 – 93.

Issenman RM, Jaffer IH. Use of voice recognition software in an outpatient pediatric specialty practice. Pediatrics. 2004; 114(3):e290-e293.

Vorbeck F Ba-Ssalamah A Kettenbach J Huebsch P. Report generation using digital speech recognition in radiology. Eur Radiol. 2000; 10 (12): 1976 – 1982.

Al-Aynati MM Chorneyko KA. Comparison of voice-automated transcription and human transcription in generating pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127 (6): 721 – 725.

Bhan SN Coblentz CL Norman GR Ali SH. Effect of voice recognition on radiologist reporting time. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2008; 59 (4): 203 – 209.

Rosenthal DIC Dupuy FS Kattapuram DE et al. Computers in radiology: computer-based speech recognition as a replacement for medical transcription. Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 170 (1): 23 – 25.

Chapman WW Aronsky D Fiszman M Haug PJ. Contribution of a speech recognition system to a computerized pneumonia guideline in the emergency department. Proc/AMIA Ann Symp AMIA Symp. 2000: 131 – 135.

Ramaswamy MR Chaljub G Esch O Fanning DD VanSonnenberg E. Continuous speech recognition in MR imaging reporting: advantages, disadvantages, and impact. Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174 (3): 617 – 622.

Ilgner J Duwel P Westhofen M. Free-text data entry by speech recognition software and its impact on clinical routine. Ear, Nose Throat J. 2006; 85 (8): 523 – 527.

Koivikko MP Kauppinen T Ahovuo J. Improvement of report workflow and productivity using speech recognition—a follow-up study. J Digit Imaging. 2008; 21 (4): 378 – 382.

Krishnaraj A Lee JK Laws SA Crawford TJ. Voice recognition software: effect on radiology report turnaround time at an academic medical center. Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195 (1): 194 – 197.

Kanal KM Hangiandreou NJ Sykes AM et al. Initial evaluation of a continuous speech recognition program for radiology. J Digit Imaging. 2001; 14 (1): 30 – 37.

Smith NT Brien RA Pettus DC Jones BR Quinn ML Sarnat A. Recognition accuracy with a voice-recognition system designed for anesthesia record keeping. J Clin Monitor.1990; 6 (4): 299 – 306.

Zemmel NJ Park SM Schweitzer J O'Keefe JS Laughon MM Edlich RF. Status of voicetype dictation for windows for the emergency physician. J Emerg Med.1996; 14 (4): 511 – 515.

McGurk S Brauer K Macfarlane TV Duncan KA. The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Brit J Radiol. 2008; 81 (970): 767 – 770.

Basma S Lord B Jacks LM Rizk M Scaranelo AM. Error rates in breast imaging reports: comparison of automatic speech recognition and dictation transcription. Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197 (4): 923 – 927.

David GC Chand D Sankaranarayanan B. Error rates in physician dictation: quality assurance and medical record production. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2014; 27 (2): 99 – 110.

Quint LE Quint DJ Myles JD. Frequency and spectrum of errors in final radiology reports generated with automatic speech recognition technology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008; 5 (12): 1196 – 1199.

Chang CA Strahan R Jolley D. Non-clinical errors using voice recognition dictation software for radiology reports: a retrospective audit. J Digit Imaging. 2011; 24 (4): 724 – 728.

Belton K Dick R. Voice-recognition technology: key to the computer-based patient record. J Am Med Record Assoc.1991; 62 (7): 27 – 32, 36, 38.

Clark S. Implementation of voice recognition technology at provenant health partners. J Am Health Inform Manag Assoc.1994; 65 (2): 34, 36, 38.

Nuance Communications. Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13 Premium Data Sheet - Nuance Communications. 2014: 2.

Coiera E. Guide to Health Informatics. 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2015.

Coiera E. Technology, cognition and error. BMJ Qual Saf2015; 24 (7): 417 – 422.

Coiera E Aarts J Kulikowski C. The dangerous decade. JAMIA. 2012; 19 (1): 2 – 5.

Chleborad KD Zvara T Hippmann K et al. Evaluation of voice-based data entry to an electronic health record system for dentistry. Biocybernetics Biomed Eng. 2013; 33 (4): 204 – 210.

Downloads

Published

2019-12-15

How to Cite

Alonayzan, H. H. M., Alenezi, ‏Talal S. S., Alshammari, ‏Khalaf S. F., Albakr, ‏Mohammed S. B., Alshammari, ‏Sanad H. S., Alghadeer, ‏Saleh O. A., … Alanzi, A. S. B. (2019). The potential of voice recognition technology in medical record documentation: Review. Tennessee Research International of Social Sciences, 1(2), 7–16. Retrieved from http://triss.org/index.php/journal/article/view/42

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2: July-December 2019

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Tennessee Research International of Social Sciences

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Articles published in the Tennessee Research International of Social Sciences (TRISS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant TRISS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.

Articles published in TRISS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.