Abstract
AIM: To compare the efficiency and accuracy of radiology reports generated by voice recognition (VR) against the traditional tape dictation–transcription (DT) method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty previously reported computed radiography (CR) and cross-sectional imaging (CSI) examinations were separately entered into the Radiology Information System (RIS) using both VR and DT. The times taken and errors found in the reports were compared using univariate analyses based upon the sign-test, and a general linear model constructed to examine the mean differences between the two methods.
RESULTS: There were significant reductions (p<0.001) in the mean difference in the reporting times using VR compared with DT for the two reporting methods assessed (CR, +67.4; CSI, +122.1 s). There was a significant increase in the mean difference in the actual radiologist times using VR compared with DT in the CSI reports; −14.3 s, p=0.037 (more experienced user); −13.7 s, p=0.014 (less experienced user). There were significantly more total and major errors when using VR compared with DT for CR reports (−0.25 and −0.26, respectively), and in total errors for CSI (−0.75, p<0.001), but no difference in major errors (−0.16, p=0.168). Although there were significantly more errors with VR in the less experienced group of users (mean difference in total errors −0.90, and major errors −0.40, p<0.001), there was no significant difference in the more experienced (p=0.419 and p=0.814, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: VR is a viable reporting method for experienced users, with a quicker overall report production time (despite an increase in the radiologists' time) and a tendency to more errors for inexperienced users.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty previously reported computed radiography (CR) and cross-sectional imaging (CSI) examinations were separately entered into the Radiology Information System (RIS) using both VR and DT. The times taken and errors found in the reports were compared using univariate analyses based upon the sign-test, and a general linear model constructed to examine the mean differences between the two methods.
RESULTS: There were significant reductions (p<0.001) in the mean difference in the reporting times using VR compared with DT for the two reporting methods assessed (CR, +67.4; CSI, +122.1 s). There was a significant increase in the mean difference in the actual radiologist times using VR compared with DT in the CSI reports; −14.3 s, p=0.037 (more experienced user); −13.7 s, p=0.014 (less experienced user). There were significantly more total and major errors when using VR compared with DT for CR reports (−0.25 and −0.26, respectively), and in total errors for CSI (−0.75, p<0.001), but no difference in major errors (−0.16, p=0.168). Although there were significantly more errors with VR in the less experienced group of users (mean difference in total errors −0.90, and major errors −0.40, p<0.001), there was no significant difference in the more experienced (p=0.419 and p=0.814, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: VR is a viable reporting method for experienced users, with a quicker overall report production time (despite an increase in the radiologists' time) and a tendency to more errors for inexperienced users.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1205-1212 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Clinical Radiology |
| Volume | 60 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2005 |