RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Speech recognition software and electronic
psychiatric progress notes: physicians’ ratings
and preferences
Yaron D Derman
1
, Tamara Arenovich
2
, John Strauss
1*
Abstract
Background: The context of the current study was mandatory adoption of electronic clinical documentation
within a large mental health care organization. Psychiatric electronic documentation has unique needs by the
nature of dense narrative content. Our goal was to determine if speech recognition (SR) would ease the creation
of electronic progress note (ePN) documents by physicians at our institution.
Methods: Subjects: Twelve physicians had access to SR software on their computers for a period of four weeks to
create ePN. Measurements: We examined SR software in relation to its perceived usability, data entry time savings,
impact on the quality of care and quality of documentation, and the impact on clinical and administrative
workflow, as compared to existing methods for data entry. Data analysis: A series of Wilcoxon signed rank tests
were used to compare pre- and post-SR measures. A qualitative study design was used.
Results: Six of twelve participants completing the study favoured the use of SR (five with SR alone plus one with
SR via hand-held digital recorder) for creating electronic progress notes over their existing mode of data entry.
There was no clear perceived benefit from SR in terms of data entry time savings, quality of care, quality of
documentation, or impact on clinical and administrative workflow.
Conclusions: Although our findings are mixed, SR may be a technology with some promise for mental health
documentation. Future investigations of this nature should use more participants, a broader range of document
types, and compare front- and back-end SR methods.
Background
Speech recognition (SR) has taken decades to mature to
the point where it can be used in medicine. Acceptance
of the SR has slowly increased as hardware and software
have matured so that the technology ‘adjusts’ to the
user rather than vice versa [1]. The introduction of con-
tinuous speech systems - which allow the user to speak
in his/her normal vernacular and rate of speech - has
increased the potential that this technology can enhance
the efficiency and quality of creating documentation
without negatively impacting the user’s time. Bergeron
[2] has provided an overview of the various options for
implementing voice recognition by individual clinicians.
A majority of the earliest reported uses of SR in medi-
cine were in radiology [3-5]. Early continuous speech
recognition resulted in semantic accuracy up to 81% [6],
but still was not good enough for clinical use. By 1997
SR and medical knowledge bases were used to produce
structured reports [7]. Another study comparing three
different SR applications against each other concluded
that increasing computer power, affordability, and soft-
ware sophistication was making the replacement of tran-
scription with SR more feasible [8].
Issenman and Jaffer [9] have proposed that most suc-
cessful implementations have been performed in radiol-
ogy or emergency services because these specialties lend
themselves to SR because they use many highly repeti-
tive phrases. Radiology departments have reported
reduced turnaround times and decreased costs for both
front-end (edited by the physician) and back-end (edited
by an editor/transcriptionist) solutions [10-12]. Similar
* Correspondence: john_strauss@camh.net
1
Information Management Group, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health,
1001 Queen St. West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
? 2010 Derman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

benefits have been reported in emergency services [13]
and pathology [14]. Mohr et al [15] conducted a rando-
mized comparison of Endocrinology and Psychiatry out-
patient notes transcribed by transcriptionists and found
that SR reduced the transcriptionists’ productivity. In a
case study analysis in a large pediatric hospital, staff per-
ceived that back-end SR improved turnaround times and
accessibility of the reports, and reduced costs without
negatively impacting workflow [1].
Along with cost and turnaround times, studies have
measured clinician efficiency, clinician satisfaction and
dictation accuracy. Borowitz [16] found that the total
time taken to dictate and edit a pediatric gastroenterol-
ogy outpatient clinical note using SR took 15% longer
than a transcriptionist typing notes recorded on a hand-
held recorder. However, all SR generated notes were
completed within 48 hours of the patient visit, whereas
only 24% of transcribed notes were completed in this
time frame. Another pediatric gastroenterologist
reported that dictating and self-editing a clinical note
took 200% longer than transcription by a skilled tran-
scriptionist and cost 100% more [9]. In a Danish hospi-
tal that had replaced transcription with SR in all clinical
specialties to reduce documentation turnaround times,
physicians surveyed felt that they spent more time creat-
ing medical records and clinical documentation quality
had declined [17]. Pezzullo et al. [18] found that using
SR to create radiology reports in one non-academic set-
ting increased radiologists’ feelings of frustration and
introduced more errors into reports and increased costs
as compared to conventional transcription services.
Another study noted that more than 20% of SR-created
reports contained potentially confusing errors, and most
radiologists believed that error rates in reports were
much lower than they actually were [19]. In summary,
SR technology has provided mixed results in various
clinical settings.
The purpose of this study was to determine if SR
would ease the creation of electronic documents by phy-
sicians in support of mandatory use of electronic pro-
gress notes (ePN) within a large mental health care
organization. The literature reviewed did not address
mental health clinical documentation generated with SR
and edited by physicians. We studied physicians’ per-
ceived value and willingness to adopt SR in relation to
the usability, data entry time savings, impact on the
quality of care and quality of documentation, and the
impact on clinical and administrative workflow, as com-
pared to the existing methods for data entry.
The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)
is Canada’s largest academic mental health hospital.
Nine clinical programs offer inpatient and/or outpatient
services from three main sites; there are 35 satellite
locations throughout the province. CAMH has 565
inpatient psychiatric beds, 1400 clinical staff, over
130 full-time medical staff, and the largest national post-
graduate psychiatry residency program. In fiscal year
2007/08, CAMH provided services for 3,698 inpatient
visits and 436,193 outpatient visits.
The clinical applications infrastructure at CAMH
includes hospital-wide electronic progress, group and
care plan notes, a document management system, a dic-
tation/transcription system for reports, electronic
laboratory orders and results, and a small barcode medi-
cation administration pilot on two inpatient units. There
is no computerized medication order entry or radiology
functionality.
By April 2009, all CAMH clinicians were required to
document ePN using a web-based application for clini-
cal documentation. CAMH medical staff responded
affirmatively to a 2007 survey that they would like to
evaluate various data entry technologies to assess if
these technologies could assist in efficient production of
electronic documentation. SR was selected for evaluation
in the first phase of the CAMH physician electronic
documentation (e-Doc) project. The CAMH Research
Ethics Board approved the research protocol and partici-
pants consented to participate.
Requirements for clinical documentation by physicians
in Ontario are dictated by the College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). The Ontario government’s
Medical Review Committee (MRC) audits claims sub-
mitted by physicians, and consists of physicians nomi-
nated by the CPSO and six members of the public. For
progress notes in Ontario, a SOAP (Subjective/Objec-
tive/Assessment/Plan) format is recommended. For
groups, a separate group note is required for each
patient-client participating in a group.
At the time of the project, ePNs were being implemen-
ted hospital-wide in a staged approach. Because of this,
at the time of the study, some participants were already
typing ePNs, while others still wrote progress notes on
paper, or dictated them for transcription. The SR soft-
ware (SRS) was compatible with ePN, so notes could be
dictated directly into the application instead of typed.
Those not yet using ePN were supplied with a Microsoft
Word (Redmond, WA) template to dictate into. These
progress notes were then printed out and included in the
paper-based clinical record. Participants were permitted
to use the SR for other applications as well.
Methods
Data was collected, over a 6 month period from July
2008 to January 2009, including pre- and post-usage
surveys and group debriefing sessions. SRS was installed
in staggered fashion in September/October 2008; dein-
stallation was between November/December 2008, also
staggered.
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 2 of 7

Twelve physicians (9 male, 3 female) of the CAMH
medical staff were selected to participate in the project
to represent the broader CAMH medical community.
All were psychiatrists, except for one primary care phy-
sician. They were selected from four clinical programs,
of which two had been using ePN for at least 6 months.
Selection was based on expressed interest, comfort with
technology and perceived need. All participants had out-
patient clinical duties, and five also had inpatient duties.
Nine reported ‘comfortable’ or ‘very comfortable’ as
their level of comfort with technology in the pre-usage
survey (described below) (Figure 1).
Each participant identified the computer s/he used
most often to create progress notes. Where necessary,
this computer was upgraded to meet the minimum
requirements for the SRS listed on the product vendor’s
website. A leading SRS product was installed by an
established SR vendor - the vendor provided 30-60 min-
utes of individual training to each participant and pager
and email contacts for technical support. SRS audio files
were stored on the clinician’s network drive folder and
not shared. The focus was on using SRS to assist with
the implementation of ePNs, which are the bulk of clini-
cal text entry for CAMH clinicians.
The installations were staggered to accommodate par-
ticipant and vendor availability. Participants were
encouraged to use the software as often as possible to
provide a thorough evaluation on behalf of their collea-
gues. Several participants experienced technical issues
using the software, which impaired their ability to use it
throughout the installation period - the vendor resolved
all issues reported. All participants were given at mini-
mum four weeks to trial the software.
Pre- and post-usage surveys were administered to
compare baseline opinions about technology with post-
usage opinions about SR. The pre-usage evaluation
began in July 2008. Ten of the twelve participants com-
pleted a ten-question pre-usage survey that was
designed for the evaluation. After the SRS had been
removed from all the participants’ computers, all twelve
participants completed the post-usage survey.
Additionally, post-usage group sessions were held to
collect additional feedback and opinions about the
potential value of SR to the broader CAMH medical
community.
Nine participants were available for the post-usage
debriefing sessions to elaborate upon their survey
responses. Two participants that could not attend a
debriefing session provided answers to the debriefing
questions via email.
We hypothesized that physicians would benefit from
using SR and that this would be reflected by an increase
in measures of perceived value of SR over the course of
the study. Changes in scores among the ten participants
that completed both surveys were assessed through a
series of Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Analysis was
conducted using SAS (Cary, NC) version 9.1.3.
Results
Our results are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1 contains post-usage frequency of SR use, com-
puter availability and preferred data entry method.
Figure 1 Physicians’ ratings pre- and post-speech recognition.Physicians’ ratings of pre- and post-speech recognition (SR) comfort with
technology/SR, time efficiency, quality of care, quality of notes and improved workflow. Pre-SR bars are black. Post-SR bars are lighter in colour. The x-
axis is the number of participants with a given rating. e.g. One participant reported a post-usage rating of “Neutral” re Comfort with technology/SR.
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 3 of 7

Frequency of SR use data showed three participants
used SR for 20% or less of their progress notes; two par-
ticipants used SR for 80% or more of their progress
notes. The rest were distributed in between. Concerning
computer accessibility, nine physicians indicated com-
puters were mostly or always accessible and three stated
computers were sometimes or rarely accessible when
they were needed to create a progress note. Our findings
on preferred method of data entry demonstrated fully
half (6/12) of the participants preferred SR. Five partici-
pants preferred to use SR for progress notes, one pre-
ferred SR assisted by dictation into a hand-held digital
recorder, three preferred keyboard typing, and three pre-
ferred handwriting.
We found no statistically significant difference pre- or
post-usage for comfort with SR software, data entry
time savings, quality of care, quality of documentation,
or impact on clinical and administrative workflow. More
detail is provided below. (See Figure 1.)
Comfort with technology and SR
As a group, 9/10 post-usage survey completers rated
themselves nearly identical to pre-usage ratings (Figure
1). There were very few requests made for support ser-
vice throughout the project. At the debriefing sessions,
all participants agreed that the software was easy to use
and they experienced next to no technical issues - one
physician reported difficulty with SR where the cause
was a desktop computer with hardware problems.
Some participants found that they did not achieve a
satisfactory recognition of their speech by the software.
Potential causes that were observed included: under-
standing of how to train the software, speech accent,
environmental noise, or minimal opportunity to use it
during the pilot.
One participant discovered that, although he consid-
ered himself a fast typist, using SR “feels like less effort
than typing“. A different participant felt it preferable to
take time to think before typing and create fewer edits
than to have to scrutinize the SR documents for mis-
takes. “It is easier to take my time and type what I want
to type than to correct.” One of the participants who
indicatedinthepost-usagesurveythatSRwasnotthe
preferred data entry method, commented “I did not rea-
lize all this while I had the SR but now that I do not
have access to it I am missing it.”
Data entry time savings
Overall, participants did not find that SR decreased the
amount of time spent documenting progress notes as
compared to their current method of data entry or other
types of technology (p = 0.19, Figure 1). Still, one partici-
pant found that his overall client throughput increased
20% as a result of using SR; the clarity of his notes
improved because he used fewer acronyms. Those that
considered themselves good typists felt that typing was
more efficient for short clinical documents such as pro-
gress notes. Also, some had (independent of SR) begun
to type during the client interview, reducing the time
required to create a progress note after the interview.
Quality of patient care
Participants tended to rate overall technology as having
more of a positive impact on quality of patient care
than SR, but it was not statistically significant. (p =
0.086). Participants did not use SR while providing
patient care. However, one participant who conducts a
high volume of outpatient visits noted that “Icould
spend more time talking to clients, as I spent less time
typing notes”.
Table 1 Frequency of SR use, computer availability, and preferred data entry method
Question Response n
Frequency of SR use (% of all progress notes created) 0-20% 3
20-40% 3
40-60% 2
60-80% 2
80-100% 2
How accessible are computers when you need to make a progress note? Rarely 2
Sometimes 1
Mostly 2
Always 7
Which method of data entry do you prefer? Handwriting 3
Keyboard 3
SR 5
Digital dictation 1
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 4 of 7

Quality of clinical documentation
Over the course of the study, there was no difference in
perceived quality of documentation with SR compared
to overall technology (p = 0.375). In the debriefing ses-
sions, participants noted that there are errors introduced
into the documents by SR that are more subtle, there-
fore “you need to proofread quite carefully“.Increased
vigilance in proofreading was considered a negative out-
come of SR, and not a positive contributor to the overall
quality of the clinical documentation. In contrast, one
participantexplicitlyobservedimprovedprogressnote
quality.
Clinical workflow
In the pre- and post-usage surveys, participants reported
that SR did not significantly improve their clinical and
administrative workflow over current data entry
methods or other types of technology (p = 0.59). In the
pre-usage survey, most participants reported that a
computer is always accessible when they need to create
progress notes, but in the post-usage survey, several
participants found that they were delayed in creating
progress notes because the computer with the SR soft-
ware was not accessible (Table 1).
Many participants stated that they began writing
paper-based progress notes during a patient interview
and then completed them afterwards. With SR, they
needed to create the entire note after interview because
they would not dictate in front of patient. Finally, parti-
cipants with heavy inpatient work found that SR was
not conducive to inpatient workflow. This was due to
the noisy environment and limited access to computers
during and after a client interview. Several participants
expressed interest in using a dictation device that cap-
tures a voice recording file for upload to SR software to
convert the voice file to text; such devices are available
in the marketplace.
Discussion
To summarize, while half of the twelve participants
favoured the use of SR for electronic progress notes
over other data entry methods, there was no clear per-
ceived benefit to SR regarding time savings, quality of
care, quality of documentation, or impact on clinical
and administrative workflow. The results of the project
suggest that some physicians are more likely to find SR
useful in creating mental health progress notes than
others. The literature reviewed also reported mixed
results for the benefits of SR technology in clinical
workflow of other medical specialties [1,3,4,9-19].
The following themes arise from our observations,
and from published reports. Four factors may contri-
bute to physician use of SR for mental health progress
notes:
? Attitude towards one’s ability to learn to type
and one’s typing efficiency - In the e-Doc project,
those that were accustomed to typing - whether they
were good typists or not - were less likely to prefer SR.
Good typists found that for short progress notes, typ-
ing was quicker and more conducive to inpatient
workflow. Slow typists that were accustomed to ePN
progress notes also did not necessarily prefer SR. Phy-
sicians that have not ‘accepted’ typing will be more
likely to adopt SR.
? Perceived value proposition - Quantifiable admin-
istrative benefits of SR were assessed in previous studies
- most reported SR successes were ‘back-end’ imple-
mentations where the physicians did not have to ‘invest’
time in order to receive these administrative benefits.
We compared the perceived ‘investment’ of using ‘front-
end’ SR to create and then self-edit the clinical docu-
ments to typing electronic progress notes. Participants
who judged that SR adequately provided value in return
for the effort involved in using it were most likely to
prefer it.
? Learning curve tolerance - Issenman and Jaffer [9]
reported that only one of four initial study participants
overcame frustrations in training the software to arrive
at a level of mastery necessary to conduct the trial. In
the e-Doc project, we found three of six participants
that did not prefer SR reported technical and/or training
issues with the software. One participant invested seven
hours reviewing and training the software, and after-
wards found SR worked better. Some individuals are
simply more tolerant of learning new technologies than
others. Bergeron proposed “Isuggestyoupickupa
$100 general-purpose voice-recognition package from
your local microcomputer center and work with it for a
week. I’ve found that it’s a love-it or hate-it affair [2].”
? Homophily -Parente,KockandSonsinipropose
that “the extent that physicians are homophilous, or
share beliefs, education, social status and other similar
attributes, will influence their attitude toward the adop-
tion and implementation of speech-recognition technol-
ogy” [1]. Alapetite et al. [17] reported that physicians’
perception of their colleagues’ assessments of SR corre-
lated significantly with their own overall assessment of
SR. Most of the participants were from different CAMH
clinical areas or services and rarely interacted with one
another, making it difficult for us to comment.
Three potentially confounding events occurred during
the project. First, three of the original twelve partici-
pants dropped out of the project before the software
was installed. Three new participants agreed to join the
e-Doc after the initial planning phase. Ultimately, twelve
participants had SR installed throughout the e-Doc pro-
ject, as originally planned. Second, due to schedule lim-
itations (e.g. vacation, travel, number of work days at
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 5 of 7

CAMH), SR usage time tended towards being shorter.
A longer period of time for physicians to learn the soft-
ware, optimize their voice profile and learn the voice
interface would have been helpful. However, time and
resource constraints made for a duration briefer than
initially planned. Longer duration of use could have pro-
duced more significant positive differences. Finally, three
of the participants revealed that they had experimented
with SR technology prior to the project. This may have
influenced their opinions about the value and usability
of the software.
Some limitations to our findings should be acknowl-
edged. Importantly, our participants were not randomly
chosen, so they may not be representative of the larger
mental health medical staff community. Second, our
sample size was very modest, owing to time and
resource constraints. Third, we did not collect the ages
of the participants. Fourth, we asked participants to
evaluate SR for only one type of document. The per-
ceived value of SR may have differed had the study been
framed as using it for all types of clinical and adminis-
trative documentation. Finally, we installed SRS on one
computer per participant. If it were more readily avail-
able on several computers or through the use of a digital
dictation recorder that integrates with the SR software,
the ease of access may have increased use.
Another caveat involves the measures of quality we
used. Quality of care and quality of documentation rat-
ings were subjectively rated by participants: limitations
include differing personal definitions of quality and var-
iation in expectations of SR. Another limitation of our
investigation is the existence of two modes of progress
note entry - in the programs that were live with ePN
and in the programs that were still using paper progress
notes. Many physicians in the ePN group had bee docu-
menting electronically for several months, and would
have been more comfortable with electronic documenta-
tion. Not surprisingly, SR was preferred more by the
ePN group: Of the eight post-usage respondents that
had access to ePN, five favoured SR or digital dictation;
of the four post-usage respondents who used Word, one
favoured SR.
We did not perform formal usability testing prior to
our study for two main reasons. Early SRS adopters
among the medical staff who reported good usability
and productivity gains. Moreover, a neighbouring hospi-
tal’s psychiatry department had successfully replaced
their transcription service with SRS using the same soft-
ware and vendor as we did. Therefore, we thought SR
methods were sufficiently usable, and wanted to test
them live.
We did obtain some unanticipated observations with
“in situ” clinical use, namely i) good typists found that
for short progress notes, typing was quicker and more
conducive to inpatient workflow and ii) participants
found that their fellow clinicians were detecting some
word errors in the SRS-generated notes, likely because
SRS can yield correctly spelled words that are contex-
tually incorrect.
While the limitations may impinge on how generaliz-
able our findings are, our results are supported by other
investigations [14,17,18].
Conclusions
We observed that half of physicians that evaluated SR
favoured the use of SR for creating mental health pro-
gress notes over other data entry methods. Attitude
towards typing, anticipated ‘return on investment’ and
learning curve tolerance appear to be good heuristic
indicators of adoption likelihood of SR by psychiatrists.
Additional research should use larger samples, a broader
range of document types, and compare front-end and
back-end SR methods to examine how SR might opti-
mallyassistwithmentalhealthdocumentation.Collect-
ing additional data variables and mobile dictation
will help to determine if physician age, typing skills
or mobile SR are associated with preference for or
perceived value of SR.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Maxine Rukundo’s assistance in providing
technical support to the e-Doc participants and Flora Wan’s support in the
early stages of data collection.
Author details
1
Information Management Group, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health,
1001 Queen St. West, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4, Canada.
2
Biostatistical
Consulting Service, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell St.,
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3M1, Canada.
Authors’ contributions
YD and JS conceptualized and designed the study, and co-wrote the
manuscript. YD carried out the data collection. TA completed the data
analysis and created the graphics. All authors reviewed and provided
feedback on the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 10 May 2010 Accepted: 25 August 2010
Published: 25 August 2010
References
1. Parente R, Kock N, Sonsini J: An analysis of the implementation and
impact of speech-recognition technology in the healthcare sector.
Perspectives in Health Information Management 2004, 1:5.
2. Bergeron B: Voice recognition and medical transcription. MedGenMed
2004, 6(3):54.
3. Leeming BW, Porter D, Jackson JD, Bleich HL, Simon M: Computerized
radiologic reporting with voice data-entry. Radiology 1981, 138(3):585-8.
4. Robbins AH, Horowitz DM, Srinivasan MK, Vincent ME, Shaffer K,
Sadowsky NL, Sonnenfeld M: Speech-controlled generation of radiology
reports. Radiology 1987, 164(2):569-573.
5. Robbins AH, Vincent ME, Shaffer K, Maietta R, Srinivasan MK: Radiology
reports: assessment of a 5,000-word speech recognizer. Radiology 1988,
167(3):853-855.
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 6 of 7

6. Detmer WM, Shiffman S, Wyatt JC, Friedman CP, Fagan LM: A continuous-
speech interface to a decision support system: II. An evaluation using a
Wizard-of-Oz experimental paradigm. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1995,
2(1):46-57.
7. Rosenthal DF, Bos JM, Sokolowski RA, Mayo JB, Quigley KA, Powell RA,
Teel MM: A voice-enabled, structured medical reporting system. JAm
Med Inform Assoc 1997, 4(6):436-441.
8. 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(5):462-468.
9. Issenman RM, Jaffer IH: Use of voice recognition software in an
outpatient pediatric specialty practice. Pediatrics 2004, 114(3):e290-3.
10. Brown B, Oakes Whiting S: Speech recognition 2008. ElectronicHealthcare
2008, 7(2):99-101.
11. Callaway EC, Sweet CF, Siegel E, Reiser JM, Beall DP: Speech recognition
interface to a hospital information system using a self-designed visual
basic program: initial experience. J Digit Imaging 2002, 15(1):43-53.
12. Kauppinen T, Koivikko MP, Ahovuo J: Improvement of report workflow
and productivity using speech recognition–a follow-up study. J Digit
Imaging 2008, 21(4):378-382.
13. Zick RG, Olsen J: Voice recognition software versus a traditional
transcription service for physician charting in the ED. Am J Emerg Med
2001, 19(4):295-298.
14. Henricks WH, Roumina K, Skilton BE, Ozan DJ, Goss GR: The utility and cost
effectiveness of voice recognition technology in surgical pathology. Mod
Pathol 2002, 15(5):565-571.
15. Mohr DN, Turner DW, Pond GR, Kamath JS, De Vos CB, Carpenter PC:
Speech recognition as a transcription aid: a randomized comparison
with standard transcription. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003, 10(1):85-93.
16. Borowitz SM: Computer-based speech recognition as an alternative to
medical transcription. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001, 8(1):101-102.
17. Alapetite A, Andersen HB, Hertzum M: Acceptance of speech recognition
by physicians: A survey of expectations, experiences, and social
influence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2009,
67(1):36-49.
18. Pezzullo JA, Tung GA, Rogg JM, Davis LM, Brody JM, Mayo-Smith WW:
Voice recognition dictation: radiologist as transcriptionist. J Digit Imaging
2008, 21(4):384-9.
19. Quint LE, Quint DJ, Myles JD: Frequency and spectrum of errors in final
radiology reports generated with automatic speech recognition
technology. J Am Coll Radiol 2008, 5(12):1196-1199.
Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44/prepub
doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-44
Cite this article as: Derman et al.: Speech recognition software and
electronic psychiatric progress notes: physicians’ ratings
and preferences. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010 10:44.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Derman et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:44
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/44
Page 7 of 7