Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2023 Apr 21;23(1):272.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04246-9.

Do clinical interview transcripts generated by speech recognition software improve clinical reasoning performance in mock patient encounters? A prospective observational study

Kiyoshi Shikino  1 , Tomoko Tsukamoto  2 , Kazutaka Noda  2 , Yoshiyuki Ohira  3 , Daiki Yokokawa  2 , Yuta Hirose  2 , Eri Sato  2 , Tsutomu Mito  2 , Takahiro Ota  2 , Yota Katsuyama  2 , Takanori Uehara  2 , Masatomi Ikusaka  2
Affiliations
Observational Study

Do clinical interview transcripts generated by speech recognition software improve clinical reasoning performance in mock patient encounters? A prospective observational study

Kiyoshi Shikino et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: To investigate whether speech recognition software for generating interview transcripts can provide more specific and precise feedback for evaluating medical interviews.

Methods: The effects of the two feedback methods on student performance in medical interviews were compared using a prospective observational trial. Seventy-nine medical students in a clinical clerkship were assigned to receive either speech-recognition feedback (n = 39; SRS feedback group) or voice-recording feedback (n = 40; IC recorder feedback group). All students' medical interviewing skills during mock patient encounters were assessed twice, first using a mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) and then a checklist. Medical students then made the most appropriate diagnoses based on medical interviews. The diagnostic accuracy, mini-CEX, and checklist scores of the two groups were compared.

Results: According to the study results, the mean diagnostic accuracy rate (SRS feedback group:1st mock 51.3%, 2nd mock 89.7%; IC recorder feedback group, 57.5%-67.5%; F(1, 77) = 4.0; p = 0.049), mini-CEX scores for overall clinical competence (SRS feedback group: 1st mock 5.2 ± 1.1, 2nd mock 7.4 ± 0.9; IC recorder feedback group: 1st mock 5.6 ± 1.4, 2nd mock 6.1 ± 1.2; F(1, 77) = 35.7; p < 0.001), and checklist scores for clinical performance (SRS feedback group: 1st mock 12.2 ± 2.4, 2nd mock 16.1 ± 1.7; IC recorder feedback group: 1st mock 13.1 ± 2.5, 2nd mock 13.8 ± 2.6; F(1, 77) = 26.1; p < 0.001) were higher with speech recognition-based feedback.

Conclusions: Speech-recognition-based feedback leads to higher diagnostic accuracy rates and higher mini-CEX and checklist scores.

Trial registration: This study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials on June 14, 2022. Due to our misunderstanding of the trial registration requirements, we registered the trial retrospectively. This study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials on 7/7/2022 (Clinical trial registration number: jRCT1030220188).

Keywords: Feedback; Medical interview; Mini-CEX; SRS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Outline of the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Speech recognition system. Speech recognition system feedback method. We recorded medical interviews using a speech recognition system and transcribed the text into Microsoft Word files
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Feedback methods. a Speech recognition system feedback method. b IC recorder feedback method (control).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gruppen LD, Woolliscroft JO, Wolf FM. The contribution of different components of the clinical encounter in generating and eliminating diagnostic hypotheses. Res Med Educ. 1988;27:242–247. - PubMed
    1. Peterson MC, Holbrook JH, Von Hales D, Smith NL, Staker LV. Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses. West J Med. 1992;156:163–165. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Graber ML. Progress understanding diagnosis and diagnostic errors: thoughts at year 10. Diagnosis (Berl) 2020;7:151–159. doi: 10.1515/dx-2020-0055. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keifenheim KE, Teufel M, Ip J, Speiser N, Leehr EJ, Zipfel S, et al. Teaching history taking to medical students: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:159. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0443-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maguire P. Can communication skills be taught? Br J Hosp Med. 1990;43:215–216. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources