ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2025
[Implementation and evaluation of a solution for automated documentation of the doctor-patient dialogue (ADAPI) in ophthalmology using the example of the IVI routine].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing bureaucratic burden in everyday clinical practice impairs doctor-patient communication (DPC). Effective use of digital technologies, such as automated semantic speech recognition (ASR) with automated extraction of diagnostically relevant information can provide a solution.
objectiveThe aim was to determine the extent to which ASR in conjunction with semantic information extraction for automated documentation of the doctor-patient dialogue (ADAPI) can be integrated into everyday clinical practice using the IVI routine as an example and whether patient care can be improved through process optimization.
methodsIn a prospective monocentric study at the Sulzbach Eye Clinic, 50 patients were included in the period from 2020 to 2022. As part of a project funded by the "Zentrale Initiative des Mittelstandes" (ZIM), a demonstrator was developed with the consortium partners and integrated into the hospital information system (HIS). For qualitative and quantitative evaluation, a survey of patients was carried out using a questionnaire before and after implementation of the ADAPI module, supplemented by a determination of acceptance and possible time saving for users.
resultsThe ADAPI module was successfully integrated into the HIS. The documentation of the findings and connection of the subsequent processes could be automated. An improvement in the DPC was reported for 13/50 patients (26%). The majority 35/50 (70%) did not notice any subjective change. The average duration of the conversation in the area of conventional documentation was 4.46 min (1-10 min) and 3.9 min with ADAPI (1-10 min).
conclusionWith respect to the quality of the conversation within the DPC, no relevant differences could be shown with both types of documentation; however, larger case numbers and other areas of application still need to be evaluated. In the long term, the use of automated documentation solutions will sustainably improve the efficiency, completeness and consistency of clinical documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39812666What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.