Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31984334›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2018

Using voice to create inpatient progress notes: effects on note timeliness, quality, and physician satisfaction.

Thomas H Payne, W David Alonso, J Andrew Markiel, Kevin Lybarger, Ross Lordon, Meliha Yetisgen, Jennifer M Zech, Andrew A White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Psychiatry in the Digital Age: A Blessing or a Curse?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas H PayneDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
W David AlonsoDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
J Andrew MarkielUW Medicine Information Technology Services, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kevin LybargerDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Ross LordonDepartment of Biomedical Health Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Meliha YetisgenDepartment of Biomedical Health Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jennifer M ZechCenter for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Andrew A WhiteDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R21 HS023631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe describe the evaluation of a system to create hospital progress notes using voice and electronic health record integration to determine if note timeliness, quality, and physician satisfaction are improved. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial to measure effects of this new method of writing inpatient progress notes, which evolved over time, on important outcomes.

resultsIntervention subjects created 709 notes and control subjects created 1143 notes. When adjusting for clustering by provider and secular trends, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the time between when patients were seen on rounds and when progress notes were viewable by others (95% confidence interval -106.9 to 12.2 min). There were no significant differences in physician satisfaction or note quality between intervention and control. DISCUSSION: Though we did not find support for the superiority of this system (Voice-Generated Enhanced Electronic Note System [VGEENS]) for our 3 primary outcomes, if notes are created using voice during or soon after rounds they are available within 10 min. Shortcomings that likely influenced subject satisfaction include the early state of our VGEENS and the short interval for system development before the randomized trial began.

conclusionVGEENS permits voice dictation on rounds to create progress notes and can reduce delay in note availability and may reduce dependence on copy/paste within notes. Timing of dictation determines when notes are available. Capturing notes in near-real-time has potential to apply NLP and decision support sooner than when notes are typed later in the day, and to improve note accuracy.

Indexed as

automatic speech recognitionelectronic health recordshospital carephysician documentationworkflow

Identifiers

PMID31984334
PMCPMC6951907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.