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

• Published in: BMC medical education 2023-04, Vol.23 (1), p.272-8, Article 272
• Main Authors: Shikino, Kiyoshi, Tsukamoto, Tomoko, Noda, Kazutaka, Ohira, Yoshiyuki, Yokokawa, Daiki, Hirose, Yuta, Sato, Eri, Mito, Tsutomu, Ota, Takahiro, Katsuyama, Yota, Uehara, Takanori, Ikusaka, Masatomi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Clinical Competence; Educational aspects; Educational Measurement - methods; Efficiency; Faculty Development; Feedback; Focus groups; Humans; Interviews; Learning Strategies; Medical education; Medical interview; Medical students; Methods; Mini-CEX; Observational studies; Patients; Physical Examinations; Physician and patient; Physician patient relationships; Retrospective Studies; Skills; Software; Speech Recognition Software; SRS; Students, Medical; Technology application; Training; Undergraduate Study; Voice recognition
• ISSN: 1472-6920; 1472-6920
• DOI: 10.1186/s12909-023-04246-9

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