Laterality errors in radiology reports generated with and without voice recognition software: Frequency and clinical significance

Marianne T. Luetmer, Christopher H. Hunt, Robert McDonald, Brian Jack Bartholmai, David F Kallmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, types, and clinical implications of laterality errors and the effect of voice recognition software on the frequency of laterality errors. Methods: All radiology reports generated between January 2007 and April 2011 were retrospectively evaluated to identify revised reports containing laterality errors. Type of error was catalogued with regard to modality, body part, type of discrepancy (major or minor, with discrepancies considered major if the potential existed to affect patient management), duration of time between report finalization and corrected report, clinical significance, and use of voice recognition. The rate of errors causing major and minor discrepancies between voice recognition-generated reports and nonvoice recognition-generated reports was compared. Results: Among 2,923,094 reports, 1,607 (0.055%) contained corrected laterality errors, and 56 (0.0019% of the total report volume) were major. A total of 584,878 (20%) were generated using voice recognition. The rate of laterality errors leading to major discrepancies in voice recognition-generated reports was 0.00188%, compared with 0.00192% in nonvoice recognition-generated reports (P =.9436). None of the errors led to wrong-sided surgery. However, there were potential adverse effects due to laterality errors in 3 patients with major discrepancies (0.000103% of the total report volume). Conclusions: Rates of laterality errors were low and, in our population, did not result in wrong-sided surgeries. Rates of laterality errors in reports with major discrepancies were unaffected by voice recognition software, but voice recognition was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of time between report finalization and the issuing of a corrected report.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)538-543
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume10
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Speech Recognition Software
Radiology
Time Management
Somatotypes
Human Body
Incidence
Population

Keywords

  • Laterality errors
  • quality
  • voice recognition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{c011d8fa4c464c6aab44cdaa83b236fe,
title = "Laterality errors in radiology reports generated with and without voice recognition software: Frequency and clinical significance",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, types, and clinical implications of laterality errors and the effect of voice recognition software on the frequency of laterality errors. Methods: All radiology reports generated between January 2007 and April 2011 were retrospectively evaluated to identify revised reports containing laterality errors. Type of error was catalogued with regard to modality, body part, type of discrepancy (major or minor, with discrepancies considered major if the potential existed to affect patient management), duration of time between report finalization and corrected report, clinical significance, and use of voice recognition. The rate of errors causing major and minor discrepancies between voice recognition-generated reports and nonvoice recognition-generated reports was compared. Results: Among 2,923,094 reports, 1,607 (0.055{\%}) contained corrected laterality errors, and 56 (0.0019{\%} of the total report volume) were major. A total of 584,878 (20{\%}) were generated using voice recognition. The rate of laterality errors leading to major discrepancies in voice recognition-generated reports was 0.00188{\%}, compared with 0.00192{\%} in nonvoice recognition-generated reports (P =.9436). None of the errors led to wrong-sided surgery. However, there were potential adverse effects due to laterality errors in 3 patients with major discrepancies (0.000103{\%} of the total report volume). Conclusions: Rates of laterality errors were low and, in our population, did not result in wrong-sided surgeries. Rates of laterality errors in reports with major discrepancies were unaffected by voice recognition software, but voice recognition was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of time between report finalization and the issuing of a corrected report.",
keywords = "Laterality errors, quality, voice recognition",
author = "Luetmer, {Marianne T.} and Hunt, {Christopher H.} and Robert McDonald and Bartholmai, {Brian Jack} and Kallmes, {David F}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "538--543",
journal = "JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laterality errors in radiology reports generated with and without voice recognition software

T2 - Frequency and clinical significance

AU - Luetmer, Marianne T.

AU - Hunt, Christopher H.

AU - McDonald, Robert

AU - Bartholmai, Brian Jack

AU - Kallmes, David F

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, types, and clinical implications of laterality errors and the effect of voice recognition software on the frequency of laterality errors. Methods: All radiology reports generated between January 2007 and April 2011 were retrospectively evaluated to identify revised reports containing laterality errors. Type of error was catalogued with regard to modality, body part, type of discrepancy (major or minor, with discrepancies considered major if the potential existed to affect patient management), duration of time between report finalization and corrected report, clinical significance, and use of voice recognition. The rate of errors causing major and minor discrepancies between voice recognition-generated reports and nonvoice recognition-generated reports was compared. Results: Among 2,923,094 reports, 1,607 (0.055%) contained corrected laterality errors, and 56 (0.0019% of the total report volume) were major. A total of 584,878 (20%) were generated using voice recognition. The rate of laterality errors leading to major discrepancies in voice recognition-generated reports was 0.00188%, compared with 0.00192% in nonvoice recognition-generated reports (P =.9436). None of the errors led to wrong-sided surgery. However, there were potential adverse effects due to laterality errors in 3 patients with major discrepancies (0.000103% of the total report volume). Conclusions: Rates of laterality errors were low and, in our population, did not result in wrong-sided surgeries. Rates of laterality errors in reports with major discrepancies were unaffected by voice recognition software, but voice recognition was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of time between report finalization and the issuing of a corrected report.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, types, and clinical implications of laterality errors and the effect of voice recognition software on the frequency of laterality errors. Methods: All radiology reports generated between January 2007 and April 2011 were retrospectively evaluated to identify revised reports containing laterality errors. Type of error was catalogued with regard to modality, body part, type of discrepancy (major or minor, with discrepancies considered major if the potential existed to affect patient management), duration of time between report finalization and corrected report, clinical significance, and use of voice recognition. The rate of errors causing major and minor discrepancies between voice recognition-generated reports and nonvoice recognition-generated reports was compared. Results: Among 2,923,094 reports, 1,607 (0.055%) contained corrected laterality errors, and 56 (0.0019% of the total report volume) were major. A total of 584,878 (20%) were generated using voice recognition. The rate of laterality errors leading to major discrepancies in voice recognition-generated reports was 0.00188%, compared with 0.00192% in nonvoice recognition-generated reports (P =.9436). None of the errors led to wrong-sided surgery. However, there were potential adverse effects due to laterality errors in 3 patients with major discrepancies (0.000103% of the total report volume). Conclusions: Rates of laterality errors were low and, in our population, did not result in wrong-sided surgeries. Rates of laterality errors in reports with major discrepancies were unaffected by voice recognition software, but voice recognition was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of time between report finalization and the issuing of a corrected report.

KW - Laterality errors

KW - quality

KW - voice recognition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928096615&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928096615&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.017

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928096615

VL - 10

SP - 538

EP - 543

JO - JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 7

ER -