Speech Recognition for Medical Dictation: Overview in Quebec and Systematic Review
Speech recognition is increasingly used in medical reporting. The aim of this article is to identify in the literature the strengths and weaknesses of this technology, as well as barriers to and facilitators of its implementation. A systematic review of systematic reviews was performed using PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the Center for Reviews and Dissemination through August 2017. The gray literature has also been consulted. The quality of systematic reviews has been assessed with the AMSTAR checklist. The main inclusion criterion was use of speech recognition for medical reporting (front-end or back-end). A survey has also been conducted in Quebec, Canada, to identify the dissemination of this technology in this province, as well as the factors leading to the success or failure of its implementation. Five systematic reviews were identified. These reviews indicated a high level of heterogeneity across studies. The quality of the studies reported was generally poor. Speech recognition is not as accurate as human transcription, but it can dramatically reduce turnaround times for reporting. In front-end use, medical doctors need to spend more time on dictation and correction than required with human transcription. With speech recognition, major errors occur up to three times more frequently. In back-end use, a potential increase in productivity of transcriptionists was noted. In conclusion, speech recognition offers several advantages for medical reporting. However, these advantages are countered by an increased burden on medical doctors and by risks of additional errors in medical reports. It is also hard to identify for which medical specialties and which clinical activities the use of speech recognition will be the most beneficial.
KeywordsSpeech recognition Transcription Systematic review Reporting error Productivity Turnaround time
We thank all our HTA partners in the province of Quebec for their help during the benchmark, as well as Dr. Colette Bellavance, Normand Bilodeau, Mélanie Boisvert, Nathalie Carrier, Dr. Édith Grégoire, Maryse Lachance, Benoît Lebel and Line Ménard, for their collaboration.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 4.Hammana, I., Lepanto, L., Poder, T., Bellemare, C., and Ly, M.-S., Speech recognition in the radiology department: a systematic review. Health. Inf. Manage. J. 44(2):4–10, 2015.Google Scholar
- 8.Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., and Bouter, L. M., Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7:10, 2007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.UETMIS-CHUS, Efficience de la reconnaissance vocale au CHUS. Prepared by Thomas Poder and Christian Bellemare, Unité d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2009.Google Scholar
- 10.DETMIS-CHUM, L’utilisation de la reconnaissance vocale au CHUM. Prepared by Imane Hammana and Luigi Lepanto, Direction de l’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé (DETMIS), Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, QC, Canada, 2012.Google Scholar
- 11.Poder, T., and Bellemare, C., Émergence d’une nouvelle technologie au service de la gestion des hôpitaux: les systèmes de reconnaissance vocale. J. Écon. Méd. 27(5):329–339, 2009.Google Scholar
- 17.Van Terheyden, N., Is speech recognition the Holy Grail? Health Manage. Technol. 26(2):42–45, 2005.Google Scholar