Do clinical interview transcripts generated by speech recognition software improve clinical reasoning performance in mock patient encounters? A prospective observational study
-
Published:2023-04-21
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6920
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Education
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Educ
Author:
Shikino Kiyoshi,Tsukamoto Tomoko,Noda Kazutaka,Ohira Yoshiyuki,Yokokawa Daiki,Hirose Yuta,Sato Eri,Mito Tsutomu,Ota Takahiro,Katsuyama Yota,Uehara Takanori,Ikusaka Masatomi
Abstract
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).
Funder
This work was supported by the Japan Medical Education Foundation under Grant
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,General Medicine
Reference36 articles.
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;27:242–7.
2. 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;156:163–5.
3. Graber ML. Progress understanding diagnosis and diagnostic errors: thoughts at year 10. Diagnosis (Berl). 2020;7:151–9.
4. 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.
5. Maguire P. Can communication skills be taught? Br J Hosp Med. 1990;43:215–6.