The question has been repeatedly raised in various forums, and a simple explanation for this is obviously due to the fact that most EMR programs have built-in voice recognition, which is not 100% accurate. Consequently, the need for a medical transcription module within the framework of EMR is necessary until such voice recognition software is 100% accurate.
At the moment, medical interpreters are important for doctors, just as secretarial services are related to professionals and enterprises, but the difference is that medical records cannot afford to have inaccuracies or erroneous medical terms that crawl to patient records. Voice recognition can now replace the office secretary, but medical translators cannot be replaced.
The incident described by the neurologist needs to be mentioned here, it so happened that the neurologist installed the EMR software in his clinic, which built a voice prompt, and to check the functionality of this, it was read dictation, which included the term "Acute encephalomyelitis" protocol Voice recognition referred to it as “Acute Ated Lites,” which is far from accurate. In desperation, the neurologist had no choice but to go back to old, old-fashioned medical transcripts.
There are offshore companies that provide transcription modules that are compatible with most electronic medical record software. They are easily integrated with existing EMR, which do not have a built-in transcription module.
Medical transcription providers offer transcription modules if doctors or clinics sign them as medical transcription service providers. If there is an EMR in the clinic that does not have a transcription module, but patients are included with voice recognition, medical records should have inaccuracies, unless the doctors correct the errors after checking the readings.
