Robert Patterson did a good job reviewing the workings of voice-recognition software. [1] Unfortunately, his conclusion that the "program did not save any money" is, in the current parlance of evidence-based medicine, not generalizable.
Patterson committed a cardinal error by using an underpowered computer system. The Pentium Pro 200-MHz machine with 64 MB of RAM that he used during his 3-month trial is woefully inadequate for the current generation of voice-recognition programs. Using the same dictation software as Patterson on a machine with the same power as his, I had virtually identical results. However, when I used the same software on a recently purchased computer with a Pentium II 400-MHz processor and 256 MB of RAM, both speed and accuracy were dramatically better.
A small but growing number of physicians are now using voice-recognition software to create their medical-encounter notes. With the newest systems, most physicians can speak at their usual speed and achieve fairly accurate results.
Although the physician may choose to correct the raw transcription personally, most doctors find it more cost-effective to have a transcriptionist review the combined text and sound file and correct it. My own experiment over a 2-week period was cost-effective, although I was forced to discontinue using the program because of staffing problems.
At present, successful use of voice-recognition systems still requires that the physician and office staff be willing to withstand significant implementation hassles. As these programs continue to improve, however, increasing numbers of physicians will discover the benefits - both financial and time - provided by voice-recognition systems.
Mark Dermer, MD
Practice Management Consultant; MD Management Ltd.; Ottawa, Ont.
References
- 1.↵