Goss Foster R, Zhou Li, Weiner Scott G
University of Colorado, Department of Emergency Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States; Tufts Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine and Clinical Decision Making, Boston, MA, United States.
Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States; Clinical & Quality Analysis, Partners HealthCare System, Boston, MA, United States; Clinical Informatics, Partners eCare, Partners HealthCare System, Boston, MA, United States; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Sep;93:70-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.05.005. Epub 2016 May 26.
Physician use of computerized speech recognition (SR) technology has risen in recent years due to its ease of use and efficiency at the point of care. However, error rates between 10 and 23% have been observed, raising concern about the number of errors being entered into the permanent medical record, their impact on quality of care and medical liability that may arise. Our aim was to determine the incidence and types of SR errors introduced by this technology in the emergency department (ED).
Level 1 emergency department with 42,000 visits/year in a tertiary academic teaching hospital.
A random sample of 100 notes dictated by attending emergency physicians (EPs) using SR software was collected from the ED electronic health record between January and June 2012. Two board-certified EPs annotated the notes and conducted error analysis independently. An existing classification schema was adopted to classify errors into eight errors types. Critical errors deemed to potentially impact patient care were identified.
There were 128 errors in total or 1.3 errors per note, and 14.8% (n=19) errors were judged to be critical. 71% of notes contained errors, and 15% contained one or more critical errors. Annunciation errors were the highest at 53.9% (n=69), followed by deletions at 18.0% (n=23) and added words at 11.7% (n=15). Nonsense errors, homonyms and spelling errors were present in 10.9% (n=14), 4.7% (n=6), and 0.8% (n=1) of notes, respectively. There were no suffix or dictionary errors. Inter-annotator agreement was 97.8%.
This is the first estimate at classifying speech recognition errors in dictated emergency department notes. Speech recognition errors occur commonly with annunciation errors being the most frequent. Error rates were comparable if not lower than previous studies. 15% of errors were deemed critical, potentially leading to miscommunication that could affect patient care.
近年来,由于计算机语音识别(SR)技术在医疗现场使用便捷且高效,医生对其使用有所增加。然而,已观察到错误率在10%至23%之间,这引发了人们对录入永久性医疗记录中的错误数量、这些错误对医疗质量的影响以及可能产生的医疗责任的担忧。我们的目的是确定该技术在急诊科(ED)引入的SR错误的发生率和类型。
一家三级学术教学医院中每年有42000人次就诊的一级急诊科。
从2012年1月至6月的ED电子健康记录中收集100份由急诊主治医师(EPs)使用SR软件听写的记录样本。两名获得委员会认证的EPs对记录进行注释并独立进行错误分析。采用现有的分类模式将错误分为八种错误类型。识别出被认为可能影响患者护理的关键错误。
总共存在128个错误,每份记录平均有1.3个错误,14.8%(n = 19)的错误被判定为关键错误。71%的记录包含错误,15%的记录包含一个或多个关键错误。发音错误最多,占53.9%(n = 69),其次是删除错误,占18.0%(n = 23),添加单词错误占11.7%(n = 15)。无意义错误、同音异形异义词和拼写错误分别出现在10.9%(n = 14)、4.7%(n = 6)和0.8%(n = 1)的记录中。没有后缀或词典错误。注释者间的一致性为97.8%。
这是首次对急诊科听写记录中的语音识别错误进行分类估计。语音识别错误常见,其中发音错误最为频繁。错误率即便不低于先前研究,也与之相当。15%的错误被视为关键错误,可能导致影响患者护理的沟通失误。