burnte

10 ms·

211.
by burnte 6mo ago
You're not the first person to focus on the transcript, but you're forgetting that the person checking the note, the doctor, was also in the session and remembers what happens. This isn't an issue.
212.
by burnte 6mo ago
My favorite part of that dance is, "Do you want to import from Chrome? [no] Should we import your data from chrome? [no] Ok, time to import your data from Chrome. [skip]" It asks you three times right in a row. Really weird.
213.
by burnte 6mo ago
No, they're not even stored. We wouldn't allow it, we don't even allow the data to be used for training.
214.
by burnte 6mo ago
I have no idea what you're talking about, I found your questions to be excellent and worthy of answering at every level of detail. I have no contempt at all, I assure you. I'm genuinely confused by your reply here.
215.
by burnte 6mo ago
That's not being used against you. That's a situation where they have a genuine need to know your health in order to properly estimate your share for a policy. Yes, it's imperfect, but generally people don't volunteer th
216.
by burnte 6mo ago
They read the note. They were in the session, if they can't remember what happened minutes before then we have bigger problems than a lack of transcript.
217.
by burnte 6mo ago
> By that line of thinking, even if AI scribes are terrible, you can only blame the doctor because they didn’t check their notes. Same for any profession. If you use bad tools expect bad outcomes. Yes, I work in a company that expects em
218.
by burnte 6mo ago
> You touched on a pet idea of mine and, since you made the mistake of actually intelligently responding to online forum comments, now I get to make a pitch for it. I have an intellectual disorder where I think people can be swayed by fa
219.
by burnte 6mo ago
Yes, but you SAID scribe, and so that statement was false.
220.
by burnte 6mo ago
That's the job of the provider. There's no other way to actually verify the accuracy of the note. You can't actually engineer humans out of the loop, the loop revolves around humans.
221.
by burnte 6mo ago
> I absolutely believe that's indeed your official policy, but people get tired, and people get overworked, and sometimes they'll succumb to the temptation to instead just give it a "quick skim" or not even really re
222.
by burnte 6mo ago
> got an erroneous Type II diabetes diagnosis dropped into the note by the AI scribe at my last appointment because my PCP discussed the A1C test he was ordering. No, you got an inaccurate diagnoses because your doctor didn't do th
223.
by burnte 6mo ago
I think every single provider should evaluate them for themselves. Some providers are absolutely better of without them and we don't make anyone use them.
224.
by burnte 6mo ago
You encountered bad providers, not bad tools. Don't blame the hammer if you hit your thumb, and don't blame the hammer if someone ELSE hits your thumb.
225.
by burnte 6mo ago
A few things. I'm price sensitive, so pricing was huge for me. The worst company also had the worst prices. I tried to ask them questions about how their backend works and they refused to answer. I spoke with the CEO and he said he cou
226.
by burnte 6mo ago
> Were those surveys performed before or after the patient received the bill? In America this doesn't matter, everyone's bills are insane. > Getting billed for a "dietary consult" because your doctor may have asked
227.
by burnte 6mo ago
> If I allow it, Which is your right, every patient can ask the provider to not use it. > is the data from my meeting sent offsite at any stage Yes, no one stores medical records on-prem any more. EMR systems are not like Quickbooks r
228.
by burnte 6mo ago
Notice how I didn't state any names? I'm not here to be a free ad. I'm just saying they're actually good tools, if you vet them right. Microsoft Dragon Copilot is not good, for example. We piloted that and had an 11% ret
229.
by burnte 6mo ago
We're not prompt engineers or app developers. In a year or two when I can buy an on-prem hosted version I'll do that.
230.
by burnte 6mo ago
I'd love to find a way to do it in house, but we're not large enough, and our core competency is healthcare, not prompt engineering. I'd rather pay a company I've evaluated and trust until I can bring a version of the to
231.
by burnte 6mo ago
Check some other replies I've given. Our clinical management team does that, quite in depth.
232.
by burnte 6mo ago
> Not to be antagonistic, but a healthcare CIO in which country? USA. I should have said that. > and stronger consumer protection and privacy laws. No, they may have stricter privacy laws outside of healthcare, but HIPAA is extremely
233.
by burnte 6mo ago
> How are note quality improvements measured? Every provider is under an Assistant Clinical Director, and they report to the Clinical Directors, who report to the CMO. ACDs see fewer patients than regular providers because they have more
234.
by burnte 6mo ago
> If I got a copy of the raw recording I might consider it. Maybe. Having that audio recording would be valuable to me. We wouldn't be able to provide it because it's never kept. It's transcribed directly, and then only th
235.
by burnte 6mo ago
> I’ve been in tech and medicine too. Consider that any “HUGE” effect in this context is likely exaggerated, especially for something as prosaic as a note-taking assistant. Imagine your doctor head down writing down everything you say. N
236.
by burnte 6mo ago
> I still don't want a fucking audio recorder in my doctor's office Which would you prefer, your doctor remembering everything, or making verbal notes into a microcassette tape recorder that is transcribed by a human later (som
237.
by burnte 6mo ago
There is no legal requirement to inform patients about the use of scribes, human or AI. If a telehealth session is recorded many states are two party and require telling the patient, but AI scribes are treated the same way other electronic
238.
by burnte 6mo ago
> We as humans have a heavy tenancy to anchor to our first judgments or impression. One of my lifelong guiding quotes: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard P. Feynman &
239.
by burnte 6mo ago
That article is from 8 years ago, accuracy is dramatically better today. We see a few percent error rate. From the 2025 study: Conclusions The CAISs demonstrate high levels of summarisation accuracy. However, there is great disparity betwee
240.
by burnte 6mo ago
I have, it's a metric I check in on ever month with my providers. It's a few percent, and the exact reason our official policy requires all users (including providers) to check AI output for accuracy. It's heavily enforced by

More ›