help button home button JAMIA Hate scrolling?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Borowitz, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Borowitz, S. M.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 8:101-102 (2001)
© 2001 American Medical Informatics Association


Case Report

Computer-based Speech Recognition as an Alternative to Medical Transcription

Stephen M. Borowitz, MD

Affiliation of the author: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Correspondence and reprints: Stephen M. Borowitz, MD, Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Box 386 HSC, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908; e-mail: <Witz{at}Virginia.edu>.

The purpose of this report is to describe the author's experience using computerized dictation during routine outpatient medical practice. During a six-month period, patients seen by the author in the Pediatric Gastroenterology Clinic at the University of Virginia were assigned to human or computer-based transcription. Of 1,129 notes, 580 were completed by a transcriptionist and 549 by computer. The total time spent dictating and editing notes was approximately one minute more for computerized dictation than for a human transcriptionist (379.81 ± 132.69 sec vs. 326.14 ± 126.02 sec; P < 0.0001). Notes generated by computer were slightly longer than notes generated by a transcriptionist (52.42 ± 16.45 lines vs. 50.41 ± 16.73 lines; P = 0.0422). Of notes generated by a transcriptionist, 139 (24 percent) were completed within two days of the visit, whereas all notes generated by computer were completed on the day of the visit.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
A. D. Harris, J. C. McGregor, E. N. Perencevich, J. P. Furuno, J. Zhu, D. E. Peterson, and J. Finkelstein
The Use and Interpretation of Quasi-Experimental Studies in Medical Informatics
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2006; 13(1): 16 - 23.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
D. N. Mohr, D. W. Turner, G. R. Pond, J. S. Kamath, C. B. De Vos, and P. C. Carpenter
Speech Recognition as a Transcription Aid: A Randomized Comparison With Standard Transcription
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2003; 10(1): 85 - 93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Medical Informatics Association.