Performance of the Voice Recognition Component

Smith, N. Ty; Brien, R. A.; Banke, K.

doi:10.1097/00000542-198709001-00193

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The drugs omitted most commonly were oral contraceptives (15 records), antibiotics (six), bronchodilators (seven) and regular aspirin (five). The most commonly omitted preoperative conditions were smoking (36 records), hypertension (17), recent upper respiratory tract infection (18), other pulmonary/bronchospastic disease (21), haematological abnormalities (12), psychiatric disturbances/dementia (10) and obesity (eight). In two records, a previous documented history of difficult intubation was not noted.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have demonstrated in this study that these text entries are omitted frequently or are inaccurate, although it is possible that improvements in this aspect would occur with computer-based entry [20] and that further improvements in accuracy could be achieved using intelligent software systems which could reject inconsistencies and demand a correction at the time of data entry. While computer-based text entry systems using keyboard, barcode, light pen, touch screen or voice recognition have been devised and evaluated [17,[20][21][22][23], it is this aspect of automated recording which has proved the most difficult to implement and is one reason why completely automated methods have been slow to develop [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Text Entries Within a Manually Compiled Anaesthetic Record

Rowe

Galletly

Henderson

1992

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have examined the accuracy of text entries within a manually compiled anaesthetic record by comparing the record of the anaesthetist with that of an observer, present throughout the procedure but whose sole purpose was the documentation of perioperative events. Eighty-six items of information were analysed for accuracy from 197 records. The mean proportion of omissions was 35% and the mean proportion of incorrect entries was 3.4%. Where no entry should have been made, the mean proportion of unwarranted entries was 1%. Accuracy varied according to the information contained; however, omissions were common for preoperative status, fluids, tourniquet use, aspects of monitoring, local anaesthesia and intraoperative problems. The most consistently accurate information was the description of the patient and that relating to intraoperative i.v. drug use. Inaccuracy was common for the majority of sites on the record, irrespective of their reflecting on the anaesthetist's performance. We suggest, therefore, that the reason for this inaccuracy of data was not related principally to anaesthetists' defensiveness, but may reflect their attitudes to the record's value and response to inadequacies in its design. The observed deficiencies in recording accuracy may affect patient safety during future anaesthesia and has relevance to medico-legal and epidemiological research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Text Entries Within a Manually Compiled Anaesthetic Record

Rowe

Galletly

Henderson

1992

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Recognition accuracy with a voice-recognition system designed for anesthesia record keeping

Smith

Brien

Pettus³

et al. 1990

J Clin Monitor Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested on three occasions, with anesthetists as subjects, the accuracy of two voice-recognition systems designed for anesthetic record keeping. Initially, a prototype system was tested (10 subjects); several years later the resulting commercial system was tested in a quiet environment (11 subjects) and in noisy operating rooms (10 subjects). For each test an anesthetist first trained the system to recognize his or her voice by reading aloud a list of common anesthetic terms. To determine recognition accuracy, the percentage of words recognized correctly by the computer, each subject repeated the vocabulary words ten times. Although accuracy was similar during the three tests, it was slightly higher with the laboratory test (mean percent of words recognized correctly, 96.5%; range of accuracy for individual anesthetists, 91.6 to 98.8%) than with the prototype test (95.9%; range, 89.1 to 99.6%). Accuracy was lowest with the operating room test (95.3%; range, 87.8 to 98.4%). Twenty-four words caused particular difficulty during the laboratory test and were eliminated from the vocabulary of the subsequent operating room test. Omitting these 24 words from the laboratory vocabulary list allowed a more nearly direct comparison with the results from the operating room list; recognition accuracy improved in the former to 97.5% (range, 92.1 to 98.9%). Two anesthetists--one each from the laboratory and operating room tests--performed poorly, and eliminating their scores changed the respective overall scores to 98.2% (range, 96.7 to 98.9%) and 96.5% (range, 94.3 to 98.4%). Thus, the corrected difference between the laboratory accuracy and the operating room accuracy was 1.7%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

show abstract