MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speech recognition technology in prehospital documentation: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4403664801 on OpenAlexafffund
Desmond Hedderson, Karen L. Courtney, Helen Monkman, Ian E. Blanchard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Informatics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDocumentationComputer scienceMedical emergencyMedicineSpeech recognitionData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The nature of paramedic workflows, where paramedics are responsible to provide care and chart concurrently, can result in incomplete or non-existent patient care reports on patient handover to the emergency department (ED). Charting delays and retrospective recollection of care may lead to patient information gaps, which can increase ED workload, cause care delays, and increase the risk of adverse events. Speech recognition documentation technology has the potential to produce complete patient care reports quicker and improve paramedic-to-ED handover. We performed a scoping review to determine paramedic perceptions and user requirements for speech recognition documentation technology. METHODS: MEDLINE, Google Scholar, IEEE Explore, ProQuest, and CINAHL were searched from 2014 to March 2024. Criteria included studies focused on paramedics' use or perceptions of speech recognition documentation technology. This review included studies conducted in the prehospital environment and adjacent agencies (i.e., ED, fire, police, military). RESULTS: The review identified eight articles that met inclusion criteria. All eight articles were small focus group-based studies in laboratory settings published on or after 2020. Five studies were conducted in the United States, two in Switzerland, and one in Japan. Of the eight studies, five recommended further live environment testing of the technology examined, and three underscored the importance of a user-centred design. The top user requirements for speech recognition adoption was hands-free use, noise reduction technology, battery life, and word accuracy. All eight studies recommended further research and development of speech recognition documentation technology in the prehospital workflow. CONCLUSION: This scoping review has highlighted that while there is a growing interest in speech recognition documentation technology in the paramedicine workflow, more research is needed, especially with larger samples in a live environment. The user requirements and perceptions of speech recognition documentation technology in paramedicine must be better understood to design systems with high adoption rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical InformaticsSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207