Capturing patient information at nursing shift changes: Methodological evaluation of speech recognition and information extraction

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 22, Issue e1, 2015, Pages e48-e66

  Suominen, Hanna ^a,j   Johnson, Maree ^b   Zhou, Liyuan ^c   Sanchez, Paula ^d   Sirel, Raul ^e   Basilakis, Jim ^f   Hanlen, Leif ^a   Estival, Dominique ^g   Dawson, Linda ^h   Kelly, Barbara ⁱ  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

^d SOUTH WESTERN SYDNEY LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^h UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

more..

Author keywords

Computer systems evaluation; Information extraction; Nursing records; Patient handoff; Speech recognition software

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CHANGE OF SHIFT REPORT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL HANDOVER; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PATIENT INFORMATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; AUSTRALIA; AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVALUATION STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; NURSING PROCESS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT;

AUSTRALIA; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NURSING PROCESS; PATIENT HANDOFF; SPEECH RECOGNITION SOFTWARE;

EID: 84947492008     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002868     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Glaser SR, Zamanou S, Hacker K. Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. MCQ. 1987;1:173-98.
2. Windows into Safety and Quality in Health Care. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare 2008. http://goo.gl/wB0XZl(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
3. Implementation Toolkit for Clinical Handover Improvement. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare 2011 http://goo.gl/xH7Ncf (accessed 4 Feb 2014).
4. The OSSIE Guide to Clinical Handover Improvement. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare 2012. http://goo.gl/IvS7dc(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
5. Tran DT, Johnson M. Classifying nursing errors in clinical management within an Australian hospital. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57:454-62.
6. Safe Handover: Safe Patients. Australian Medical Association 2006 http://goo.gl/9U8wjm (accessed 4 Feb 2014).
7. Johnson M, Sanchez P, Suominen H, et al. Comparing nursing handover and documentation: forming one set of patient information. Int Nurs Rev. 2014;61:73-81.
8. Pothier D, Monteiro P, Mooktiar M, et al. Pilot study to show the loss of important data in nursing handover. Br J Nurs. 2005;14:1090-3.
9. Matic J, Davidson P, Salamonson Y. Review: bringing patient safety to the forefront through structured computerisation during clinical handover. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20:184-9.
10. Poletic EB, Holly C. A systematic review of nurses' intershift handoff reports in acute care hospitals. JBI Library Syst Rev. 2010;8:121-72.
11. Holly C, Poletic EB. A systematic review on the transfer of information during nurse transitions in care. J Clin Nurs. 2013;23:17-18.
12. Patient Safety: Organizational Tools (see the sections of Safe Handover: Safe Patients and Handover (Handoff) Tools). The World Health Organization. http://goo.gl/rhmSCK(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
13. National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care 2011-2012. http://goo.gl/rSLHg0(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
14. Devine EG, Gaehde SA, Curtis AC. Comparative evaluation of three continuous speech recognition software packages in the generation of medical reports. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:462-8.
15. Zick RG, Olsen J. Voice recognition software versus a traditional transcription service for physician charting in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19:295-8.
16. Al-Aynati MM, Chorneyko KA. Comparison of voiceautomated transcription and human transcription in generating pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127: 721-5.
17. Alapetite A. Impact of noise and other factors on speech recognition in anaesthesia. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77:68-77.
18. Meystre SM, Savova GK, Kipper-Schuler KC, et al. Extracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research. Yearb Med Inform. 2008:128-44.
19. OECD.StatsExtracts. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2009 (i.e., the most recent year that has almost all data available in 2014). http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH_STAT(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
20. Dalianis H, Hassel M, Velupillai S. The Stockholm EPR Corpus-characteristics and some initial findings. Proceedings of The 14th International Symposium for Health Information Management Research, ISHIMIR-09; Kalmar, Sweden: 2009.
21. Suominen H, Lundgrén-Laine H, Salanterä S, et al. Information flow in intensive care narratives. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops, BIBM 2009; Washington DC, USA: IEEE, 2009:325-30.
22. Manor-Shulman O, Beyene J, Frndova H, et al. Quantifying the volume of documented clinical information in critical illness. J Crit Care. 2008;23:245-50.
23. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, et al. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency on physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:505-16.
24. Hakes B, Whittington J. Assessing the impact of an electronic medical record on nurse documentation time. Comput Inform Nurs. 2008;26:234-41.
25. Banner L, Olney C. Automated clinical documentation: does it allow nurses more time for patient care? Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27:75-81.
26. Callaway EC, Sweet CF, Siegel E, et al. Speech recognition interface to a hospital information system using a selfdesigned visual basic program: initial experience. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15:43-53.
27. Koivikko M, Kauppinen T, Ahovuo J. Improvement of report workflow and productivity using speech recognition-a follow-up study. J Digit Imaging. 2008;21:378-82.
28. Langer SG. Impact of speech recognition on radiologist productivity. J Digit Imaging. 2002;15:203-9.
29. Singh M, Pal TR. Voice recognition technology implementation in surgical pathology: advantages and limitations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1476-81.
30. Allan J, Aslam J, Belkin N, et al. Challenges in information retrieval and language modeling: report of a workshop held at the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval, University of Massachusetts Amherst, September 2002. SIGIR Forum. 2003;37:31-47.
31. Lovis C, Baud RH, Planche P. Power of expression in the electronic patient record: structured data or narrative text? Int J Med Inform. 2000;58-59:101-10.
32. Walsh SH. The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ. 2004; 328:1184-7.
33. Tange H. How to approach the structuring of the medical record? Towards a model for exible access to free text medical data. Int J Biomed Comput. 1996;42:27-34.
34. Tange H, Hasman A, de Vries Robbe P, et al. Medical narratives in electronic medical records. Int J Med Inform. 1997; 46:7-29.
35. Kärkkäinen O, Eriksson K. Evaluation of patient records as part of developing a nursing care classification. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12:198-205.
36. Dawson L, Johnson M, Suominen H, et al. The usability of speech recognition technologies in clinical handover: a preimplementation study. J Med Syst. 2014;38:1-9.
37. Williams JR. Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting; 1998:1447-51.
38. Karat CM, Halverson C, Horn D, et al. Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1999; New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1999:568-75.
39. Ayres RU, Martinás K, eds. 120 wpm for very skilled typist. In: On the reappraisal of microeconomics: economic growth and change in a material world. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005:41.
40. Dragon NaturallySpeaking Speech Recognition: More speed. More accuracy. More features! Spectronics. http://goo.gl/FZqHZj(accessed 4 Feb 2014).
41. Suominen H, Basilakis J, Johnson M, et al. Preliminary Evaluation of speech recognition for capturing patient information at nursing shift changes: accuracy in speech to text and user preferences for recorders. In: Suominen H, ed. The proceedings of the fourth international workshop on health document text mining and information analysis, Louhi. Sydney, NSW, Australia: NICTA, 2013.
42. Johnson M, Jeffries D, Nicholls D. Developing a minimum data set for electronic nursing handover. J Clin Nurs. 2012; 31:331-43.
43. Johnson M, Jeffries D, Nicholls D. Exploring the structure and organization of information within nursing clinical handovers. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18:462-70.
44. Ogren PV. Knowtator: a Protégé plugin for annotated corpus construction. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, NAACL 2006. Morristown, NJ, USA: ACL, 2006:273-5.
45. Lafferty J, McCallum A, Pereira F. Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Brodley CE, Pohoreckyj Danyluk A, eds. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2001. Burlington, MA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2001:282-9.
46. Suominen H, Pahikkala T, Salakoski T. Critical points in assessing learning performance via cross-validation. In: Honkela T, Pllä M, Paukkeri M-S, Simula O, eds. Proceedings of the 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Adaptive Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, AKRR 2008. Porvoo, Finland, 2008:9-22.
47. Suominen H, Ferraro G. Noise in speech-to-text voice: analysis of errors and feasibility of phonetic similarity for their correction. In: Karimi S, Verspoor K, eds. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2013, ALTA 2013. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: ACL, 2013: 34-42.
48. Reeves RM, Ong FR, Matheny ME, et al. Detecting temporal expressions in medical narratives. Int J Med Inform. 2013; 82:118-27.
49. NANDA International. Nursing diagnoses-definitions and classifications 2012-2014. 9th edn. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
50. Bulechek G, Butcher H, Dochterman J. Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). 5th edn. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.
51. Moorhead S, Johnson M, Maas M, et al. Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC). 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.
52. Denny JC, Irani PR, Wehbe FH, et al. The KnowledgeMap project: development of a concept-based medical school curriculum database. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003: 195-9.
53. Denny JC, Smithers JD, Miller RA, et al. "Understanding" medical school curriculum content using knowledgemap. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:351-62.
54. Meystre SM, Haug PJ. Comparing natural language processing tools to extract medical problems from narrative text. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;2005:525-9.
55. Shah NH, Bhatia N, Jonquet C, et al. Comparison of concept recognizers for building the Open Biomedical Annotator. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10(Suppl 9):S14.
56. Aronson AR, Lang FM. An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:229-36.
57. Stewart SA, von Maltzahn ME, Raza Abidi SS. Comparing Metamap to MGrep as a tool for mapping free text to formal medical lexicons. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Consolidation from Social Media (KECSM2012).
58. Aronson AR, Rindflesch TC. Query expansion using the UMLS Metathesaurus. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997:485-9.
59. Hofmann O, Schomburg D. Concept-based annotation of enzyme classes. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:2059-66.
60. National Research Council. Patient safety: achieving a new standard for care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.