Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 504–511 | Cite as

Prepopulated Radiology Report Templates: A Prospective Analysis of Error Rate and Turnaround Time

  • C. M. Hawkins
  • S. Hall
  • J. Hardin
  • S. Salisbury
  • A. J. Towbin
Article

Abstract

Current speech recognition software allows exam-specific standard reports to be prepopulated into the dictation field based on the radiology information system procedure code. While it is thought that prepopulating reports can decrease the time required to dictate a study and the overall number of errors in the final report, this hypothesis has not been studied in a clinical setting. A prospective study was performed. During the first week, radiologists dictated all studies using prepopulated standard reports. During the second week, all studies were dictated after prepopulated reports had been disabled. Final radiology reports were evaluated for 11 different types of errors. Each error within a report was classified individually. The median time required to dictate an exam was compared between the 2 weeks. There were 12,387 reports dictated during the study, of which, 1,173 randomly distributed reports were analyzed for errors. There was no difference in the number of errors per report between the 2 weeks; however, radiologists overwhelmingly preferred using a standard report both weeks. Grammatical errors were by far the most common error type, followed by missense errors and errors of omission. There was no significant difference in the median dictation time when comparing studies performed each week. The use of prepopulated reports does not alone affect the error rate or dictation time of radiology reports. While it is a useful feature for radiologists, it must be coupled with other strategies in order to decrease errors.

Keywords

Standardized report Structured report Prepopulated reports Speech recognition Turnaround time 

References

  1. 1.
    Krishnaraj A, Lee JKT, Laws SA, Crawford TJ: Voice recognition software: effect on radiology report turnaround time at an academic medical center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:194–197, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhan SN, Coblentz CL, Norman GR, Ali SH: Effect of voice recognition on radiologist reporting time. Can Assoc Radiol J 59:203–209, 2008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koivikko MP, Kauppinen T, Ahovuo J: Improvement of report workflow and productivity using speech recognition – A follow-up study. J Digit Imaging 21:378–382, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quint LE, Quint DJ, Myles JD: Frequency and spectrum of errors in final radiology report generated with automatic speech recognition technology. J Am Coll Radiol 5:1196–1199, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane TV, Duncan KA: The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol 81:767–770, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanal KM, Hangiandreou NJ, Sykes AMG, Eklund HE, Araoz PA, Leon JA, Erickson BJ: Evaluation of the accuracy of continuous speech recognition software system in radiology. J Digit Imaging 13:211–212, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL: Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4:313–319, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reinus WR: Economics of radiology report editing using voice recognition technology. J Am Coll Radiol 4:890–894, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Voll K, Atkins S, Forster B: Improving the utility of speech recognition through error detection. J Digit Imaging 21:371–377, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Hawkins
    • 1
  • S. Hall
    • 1
  • J. Hardin
    • 1
  • S. Salisbury
    • 2
  • A. J. Towbin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations