Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting

Purpose: Despite the frequent introduction of voice recognition (VR) into radiology departments, little evidence still exists about its impact on workflow, error rates and costs. We designed a study to compare typographical errors, turnaround times (TAT) from reported to verified and productivity fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2010-10, Vol.54 (5), p.411-414
Hauptverfasser: Strahan, Rodney H, Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 414
container_issue 5
container_start_page 411
container_title Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
container_volume 54
creator Strahan, Rodney H
Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E
description Purpose: Despite the frequent introduction of voice recognition (VR) into radiology departments, little evidence still exists about its impact on workflow, error rates and costs. We designed a study to compare typographical errors, turnaround times (TAT) from reported to verified and productivity for VR‐generated reports versus transcriptionist‐generated reports in MRI. Methods: Fifty MRI reports generated by VR and 50 finalised MRI reports generated by the transcriptionist, of two radiologists, were sampled retrospectively. Two hundred reports were scrutinised for typographical errors and the average TAT from dictated to final approval. To assess productivity, the average MRI reports per hour for one of the radiologists was calculated using data from extra weekend reporting sessions. Results: Forty‐two % and 30% of the finalised VR reports for each of the radiologists investigated contained errors. Only 6% and 8% of the transcriptionist‐generated reports contained errors. The average TAT for VR was 0 h, and for the transcriptionist reports TAT was 89 and 38.9 h. Productivity was calculated at 8.6 MRI reports per hour using VR and 13.3 MRI reports using the transcriptionist, representing a 55% increase in productivity. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that VR is not an effective method of generating reports for MRI. Ideally, we would have the report error rate and productivity of a transcriptionist and the TAT of VR.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02193.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759522651</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>759522651</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4083-bda52d934d5f6bbcef14d7ac8afeca15a3ccf3a32a7fdc1a9f897808cb40085b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhujEb_-gumdV8N2XWnrjTEEERFNjAp3Tdd1pAgbthvCv7cT5Nre9OT0Pc9pHgAgRm0czvWsjRlNIpFw2o5R6KIYC9JeH4CT_cPhvmasBU69nyHUwTgRx6AVI0G5IPwETD5Kqw10RpfTwla2LODKOF97WDlVeO3ssmlaX93AnnOlg05VxkNVZHDpyqzWlV3ZagNtAUevgwBalq6yxfQcHOVq7s3F7j4D7_e9t-5D9PTSH3TvniKdIE6iNFM0zgRJMpp30lSbHCcZU5qr3GiFqSJa50SRWLE801iJnAvGEddpghCnKTkDV1tu-M1XbXwlF9ZrM5-rwpS1l4wKGscdikOSb5Pald47k8ulswvlNhIj2WiVM9kYk4092WiVv1rlOoxe7pbU6cJk-8E_jyFwuw1827nZ_BssH0eD15emDoRoSwiqzXpPUO5TdhhhVI6f-5KMhqPhcIzlhPwARUaY9A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>759522651</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Strahan, Rodney H ; Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</creator><creatorcontrib>Strahan, Rodney H ; Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: Despite the frequent introduction of voice recognition (VR) into radiology departments, little evidence still exists about its impact on workflow, error rates and costs. We designed a study to compare typographical errors, turnaround times (TAT) from reported to verified and productivity for VR‐generated reports versus transcriptionist‐generated reports in MRI. Methods: Fifty MRI reports generated by VR and 50 finalised MRI reports generated by the transcriptionist, of two radiologists, were sampled retrospectively. Two hundred reports were scrutinised for typographical errors and the average TAT from dictated to final approval. To assess productivity, the average MRI reports per hour for one of the radiologists was calculated using data from extra weekend reporting sessions. Results: Forty‐two % and 30% of the finalised VR reports for each of the radiologists investigated contained errors. Only 6% and 8% of the transcriptionist‐generated reports contained errors. The average TAT for VR was 0 h, and for the transcriptionist reports TAT was 89 and 38.9 h. Productivity was calculated at 8.6 MRI reports per hour using VR and 13.3 MRI reports using the transcriptionist, representing a 55% increase in productivity. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that VR is not an effective method of generating reports for MRI. Ideally, we would have the report error rate and productivity of a transcriptionist and the TAT of VR.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-9485</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02193.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20958938</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><subject>computers in radiology ; economics (medical) ; Efficiency ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Quality Control ; Radiology Department, Hospital - organization &amp; administration ; Radiology Information Systems - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Speech Recognition Software ; transcriptionist ; voice recognition ; Work Simplification</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2010-10, Vol.54 (5), p.411-414</ispartof><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology © 2010 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists</rights><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology © 2010 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4083-bda52d934d5f6bbcef14d7ac8afeca15a3ccf3a32a7fdc1a9f897808cb40085b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4083-bda52d934d5f6bbcef14d7ac8afeca15a3ccf3a32a7fdc1a9f897808cb40085b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1754-9485.2010.02193.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1754-9485.2010.02193.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27926,27927,45576,45577</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20958938$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Strahan, Rodney H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</creatorcontrib><title>Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting</title><title>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</title><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><description>Purpose: Despite the frequent introduction of voice recognition (VR) into radiology departments, little evidence still exists about its impact on workflow, error rates and costs. We designed a study to compare typographical errors, turnaround times (TAT) from reported to verified and productivity for VR‐generated reports versus transcriptionist‐generated reports in MRI. Methods: Fifty MRI reports generated by VR and 50 finalised MRI reports generated by the transcriptionist, of two radiologists, were sampled retrospectively. Two hundred reports were scrutinised for typographical errors and the average TAT from dictated to final approval. To assess productivity, the average MRI reports per hour for one of the radiologists was calculated using data from extra weekend reporting sessions. Results: Forty‐two % and 30% of the finalised VR reports for each of the radiologists investigated contained errors. Only 6% and 8% of the transcriptionist‐generated reports contained errors. The average TAT for VR was 0 h, and for the transcriptionist reports TAT was 89 and 38.9 h. Productivity was calculated at 8.6 MRI reports per hour using VR and 13.3 MRI reports using the transcriptionist, representing a 55% increase in productivity. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that VR is not an effective method of generating reports for MRI. Ideally, we would have the report error rate and productivity of a transcriptionist and the TAT of VR.</description><subject>computers in radiology</subject><subject>economics (medical)</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Radiology Department, Hospital - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Radiology Information Systems - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Speech Recognition Software</subject><subject>transcriptionist</subject><subject>voice recognition</subject><subject>Work Simplification</subject><issn>1754-9477</issn><issn>1754-9485</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhujEb_-gumdV8N2XWnrjTEEERFNjAp3Tdd1pAgbthvCv7cT5Nre9OT0Pc9pHgAgRm0czvWsjRlNIpFw2o5R6KIYC9JeH4CT_cPhvmasBU69nyHUwTgRx6AVI0G5IPwETD5Kqw10RpfTwla2LODKOF97WDlVeO3ssmlaX93AnnOlg05VxkNVZHDpyqzWlV3ZagNtAUevgwBalq6yxfQcHOVq7s3F7j4D7_e9t-5D9PTSH3TvniKdIE6iNFM0zgRJMpp30lSbHCcZU5qr3GiFqSJa50SRWLE801iJnAvGEddpghCnKTkDV1tu-M1XbXwlF9ZrM5-rwpS1l4wKGscdikOSb5Pald47k8ulswvlNhIj2WiVM9kYk4092WiVv1rlOoxe7pbU6cJk-8E_jyFwuw1827nZ_BssH0eD15emDoRoSwiqzXpPUO5TdhhhVI6f-5KMhqPhcIzlhPwARUaY9A</recordid><startdate>201010</startdate><enddate>201010</enddate><creator>Strahan, Rodney H</creator><creator>Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Asia</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201010</creationdate><title>Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting</title><author>Strahan, Rodney H ; Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4083-bda52d934d5f6bbcef14d7ac8afeca15a3ccf3a32a7fdc1a9f897808cb40085b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>computers in radiology</topic><topic>economics (medical)</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Radiology Department, Hospital - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Radiology Information Systems - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Speech Recognition Software</topic><topic>transcriptionist</topic><topic>voice recognition</topic><topic>Work Simplification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Strahan, Rodney H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Strahan, Rodney H</au><au>Schneider-Kolsky, Michal E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><date>2010-10</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>411</spage><epage>414</epage><pages>411-414</pages><issn>1754-9477</issn><eissn>1754-9485</eissn><abstract>Purpose: Despite the frequent introduction of voice recognition (VR) into radiology departments, little evidence still exists about its impact on workflow, error rates and costs. We designed a study to compare typographical errors, turnaround times (TAT) from reported to verified and productivity for VR‐generated reports versus transcriptionist‐generated reports in MRI. Methods: Fifty MRI reports generated by VR and 50 finalised MRI reports generated by the transcriptionist, of two radiologists, were sampled retrospectively. Two hundred reports were scrutinised for typographical errors and the average TAT from dictated to final approval. To assess productivity, the average MRI reports per hour for one of the radiologists was calculated using data from extra weekend reporting sessions. Results: Forty‐two % and 30% of the finalised VR reports for each of the radiologists investigated contained errors. Only 6% and 8% of the transcriptionist‐generated reports contained errors. The average TAT for VR was 0 h, and for the transcriptionist reports TAT was 89 and 38.9 h. Productivity was calculated at 8.6 MRI reports per hour using VR and 13.3 MRI reports using the transcriptionist, representing a 55% increase in productivity. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that VR is not an effective method of generating reports for MRI. Ideally, we would have the report error rate and productivity of a transcriptionist and the TAT of VR.</abstract><cop>Melbourne, Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Asia</pub><pmid>20958938</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02193.x</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1754-9477
ispartof Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2010-10, Vol.54 (5), p.411-414
issn 1754-9477
1754-9485
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759522651
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects computers in radiology
economics (medical)
Efficiency
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Quality Control
Radiology Department, Hospital - organization & administration
Radiology Information Systems - statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Speech Recognition Software
transcriptionist
voice recognition
Work Simplification
title Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: Error rates and productivity in MRI reporting
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T09%3A00%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Voice%20recognition%20versus%20transcriptionist:%20Error%20rates%20and%20productivity%20in%20MRI%20reporting&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20imaging%20and%20radiation%20oncology&rft.au=Strahan,%20Rodney%20H&rft.date=2010-10&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=411&rft.epage=414&rft.pages=411-414&rft.issn=1754-9477&rft.eissn=1754-9485&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02193.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E759522651%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=759522651&rft_id=info:pmid/20958938&rfr_iscdi=true