4 ms·
Errors can be a significant problem in manual charting as well. I know a medical professional who does a similar evaluation process to what is outlined in your
by kube-system 6mo ago
Errors can be a significant problem in manual charting as well.
I know a medical professional who does a similar evaluation process to what is outlined in your second link to human written charts. They then use that feedback to guide the department on how to improve their charting.
So, don't presume that those error rates cited in those studies should be compared to a baseline rate of zero. If you review human-written charts, you will often also not have an error rate of zero.
- fc417fc802 6mo agoHas anyone considered simply asking the patient to sign off on these things as well? I realize many wouldn't but at least some would.
- kube-system 6mo agoIn the US, HIPAA gives patients a right to access and have corrections added to their medical record. But in my conversations with a person I know who does this work -- I don't think that the typical problems with patient charts are anything that would be remotely noticeable to a patient -- they're often deficiencies of a technical and/or clinical significance.
- Paul-Craft 6mo agoI don't think anyone mentioned comparing AI error rates to a base rate of zero. What has been mentioned is significant numbers of clinically significant omissions, and outright hallucinations. Blatant fabrications should never happen with a human scribe, and one would expect clinically significant omissions to be rarer, because a human has clinical judgement that an AI can't have.