In EDS ansehen

Development of novel optical character recognition system to reduce recording time for vital signs and prescriptions: A simulation-based study.

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Development of novel optical character recognition system to reduce recording time for vital signs and prescriptions: A simulation-based study.
Autoren: Soeno, Shoko, Liu, Keibun, Watanabe, Shiruku, Sonoo, Tomohiro, Goto, Tadahiro
Quelle: PLoS ONE; 1/19/2024, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p1-11, 11p
Schlagwörter: OPTICAL character recognition, VITAL signs, VITAL records (Births, deaths, etc.), MEDICAL prescriptions, ERROR rates, FIRE departments
Geografische Kategorien: JAPAN
Abstract: Digital advancements can reduce the burden of recording clinical information. This intra-subject experimental study compared the time and error rates for recording vital signs and prescriptions between an optical character reader (OCR) and manual typing. This study was conducted at three community hospitals and two fire departments in Japan. Thirty-eight volunteers (15 paramedics, 10 nurses, and 13 physicians) participated in the study. We prepared six sample pictures: three ambulance monitors for vital signs (normal, abnormal, and shock) and three pharmacy notebooks that provided prescriptions (two, four, or six medications). The participants recorded the data for each picture using an OCR or by manually typing on a smartphone. The outcomes were recording time and error rate defined as the number of characters with omissions or misrecognitions/misspellings of the total number of characters. Data were analyzed using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum and McNemar's tests. The recording times for vital signs were similar between groups (normal state, 21 s [interquartile range (IQR), 17–26 s] for OCR vs. 23 s [IQR, 18–31 s] for manual typing). In contrast, prescription recording was faster with the OCR (e.g., six-medication list, 18 s [IQR, 14–21 s] for OCR vs. 144 s [IQR, 112–187 s] for manual typing). The OCR had fewer errors than manual typing for both vital signs and prescriptions (0/1056 [0%] vs. 14/1056 [1.32%]; p<0.001 and 30/4814 [0.62%] vs. 53/4814 [1.10%], respectively). In conclusion, the developed OCR reduced the recording time for prescriptions but not vital signs. The OCR showed lower error rates than manual typing for both vital signs and prescription data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of PLoS ONE is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Complementary Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:Digital advancements can reduce the burden of recording clinical information. This intra-subject experimental study compared the time and error rates for recording vital signs and prescriptions between an optical character reader (OCR) and manual typing. This study was conducted at three community hospitals and two fire departments in Japan. Thirty-eight volunteers (15 paramedics, 10 nurses, and 13 physicians) participated in the study. We prepared six sample pictures: three ambulance monitors for vital signs (normal, abnormal, and shock) and three pharmacy notebooks that provided prescriptions (two, four, or six medications). The participants recorded the data for each picture using an OCR or by manually typing on a smartphone. The outcomes were recording time and error rate defined as the number of characters with omissions or misrecognitions/misspellings of the total number of characters. Data were analyzed using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum and McNemar's tests. The recording times for vital signs were similar between groups (normal state, 21 s [interquartile range (IQR), 17–26 s] for OCR vs. 23 s [IQR, 18–31 s] for manual typing). In contrast, prescription recording was faster with the OCR (e.g., six-medication list, 18 s [IQR, 14–21 s] for OCR vs. 144 s [IQR, 112–187 s] for manual typing). The OCR had fewer errors than manual typing for both vital signs and prescriptions (0/1056 [0%] vs. 14/1056 [1.32%]; p<0.001 and 30/4814 [0.62%] vs. 53/4814 [1.10%], respectively). In conclusion, the developed OCR reduced the recording time for prescriptions but not vital signs. The OCR showed lower error rates than manual typing for both vital signs and prescription data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:19326203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0296319