AI Article Synopsis

  • * The study evaluated four ASR engines using recordings from EMS simulations, finding that Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation performed best among them, particularly in categories like "mental state" and "allergies."
  • * Despite some successes, all ASR engines had low accuracy in critical areas such as "treatment" and "medication," indicating a need for further advancements to enhance transcription reliability in fast-paced medical situations.

Article Abstract

Purpose Cutting-edge automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology holds significant promise in transcribing and recognizing medical information during patient encounters, thereby enabling automatic and real-time clinical documentation, which could significantly alleviate care clinicians' burdens. Nevertheless, the performance of current-generation ASR technology in analyzing conversations in noisy and dynamic medical settings, such as prehospital or Emergency Medical Services (EMS), lacks sufficient validation. This study explores the current technological limitations and future potential of deploying ASR technology for clinical documentation in fast-paced and noisy medical settings such as EMS. Methods In this study, we evaluated four ASR engines, including Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation, OpenAI Speech-to-Text, Amazon Transcribe Medical, and Azure Speech-to-Text engine. The empirical data used for evaluation were 40 EMS simulation recordings. The transcribed texts were analyzed for accuracy against 23 Electronic Health Records (EHR) categories of EMS. The common types of errors in transcription were also analyzed. Results Among all four ASR engines, Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation performed the best. Among all EHR categories, better performance was observed in categories "mental state" (F1 = 1.0), "allergies" (F1 = 0.917), "past medical history" (F1 = 0.804), "electrolytes" (F1 = 1.0), and "blood glucose level" (F1 = 0.813). However, all four ASR engines demonstrated low performance in transcribing certain critical categories, such as "treatment" (F1 = 0.650) and "medication" (F1 = 0.577). Conclusion Current ASR solutions fall short in fully automating the clinical documentation in EMS setting. Our findings highlight the need for further improvement and development of automated clinical documentation technology to improve recognition accuracy in time-critical and dynamic medical settings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343293PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4727659/v1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

clinical documentation
16
asr technology
12
medical settings
12
asr engines
12
automatic speech
8
speech recognition
8
dynamic medical
8
google speech-to-text
8
speech-to-text clinical
8
clinical conversation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!