Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium logoLink to Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium
. 2000:131–135.

Contribution of a speech recognition system to a computerized pneumonia guideline in the emergency department.

W W Chapman 1, D Aronsky 1, M Fiszman 1, P J Haug 1
PMCID: PMC2244086  PMID: 11079859

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of a radiology speech recognition system on a real-time computerized guideline in the emergency department. METHODS: We collected all chest x-ray reports (n = 727) generated for patients in the emergency department during a six-week period. We divided the concurrently generated reports into those generated with speech recognition and those generated by traditional dictation. We compared the two sets of reports for availability during the patient's emergency department encounter and for readability. RESULTS: Reports generated by speech recognition were available seven times more often during the patients' encounters than reports generated by traditional dictation. Using speech recognition reduced the turnover time of reports from 12 hours 33 minutes to 2 hours 13 minutes. Readability scores were identical for both kinds of reports. CONCLUSION: Using speech recognition to generate chest x-ray reports reduces turnover time so reports are available while patients are in the emergency department.

Full text

PDF
131

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aronsky D., Haug P. J. Diagnosing community-acquired pneumonia with a Bayesian network. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:632–636. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Friedman C., Hripcsak G. Natural language processing and its future in medicine. Acad Med. 1999 Aug;74(8):890–895. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199908000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardner R. M., Pryor T. A., Warner H. R. The HELP hospital information system: update 1998. Int J Med Inform. 1999 Jun;54(3):169–182. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00013-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Graber M. A., Roller C. M., Kaeble B. Readability levels of patient education material on the World Wide Web. J Fam Pract. 1999 Jan;48(1):58–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Maynard A. M. Preparing readable patient education handouts. J Nurses Staff Dev. 1999 Jan-Feb;15(1):11–18. doi: 10.1097/00124645-199901000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Morris A. H. Developing and implementing computerized protocols for standardization of clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Mar 7;132(5):373–383. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Pearson M. G. How can the implementation of guidelines be improved? Chest. 2000 Feb;117(2 Suppl):38S–41S. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.2_suppl.38s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Roberts J. C., Fletcher R. H., Fletcher S. W. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):119–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Seltzer S. E., Kelly P., Adams D. F., Chiango B. F., Viera M. A., Fener E., Hooton S., Bannon-Rohrbach S., Healy C. D., Doubilet P. M. Expediting the turnaround of radiology reports in a teaching hospital setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Apr;168(4):889–893. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.4.9124134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sierra A. E., Bisesi M. A., Rosenbaum T. L., Potchen E. J. Readability of the radiologic report. Invest Radiol. 1992 Mar;27(3):236–239. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199203000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Zafar A., Overhage J. M., McDonald C. J. Continuous speech recognition for clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 May-Jun;6(3):195–204. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES