The slow adoption rate of the EHR is as a result of several factors. The complication related to human computer interface and the competence (or lack of it) to input data and navigate the system is one of these factors. Speed recognition maybe the key to improving the EHR adoption rates by improving the efficiency within the practice and increasing the quality of the patient care provided.
One major expectation in relation to the implementation of the EHR is that technology will enhance patient care such that it will not be an obstacle to the time-tested clinician work-flows and overburden the medical staff. A number of clinicians believe that narratives are fundamental to a patient's case of illness, Walsh S. (2004). Their argument is that computers are supposed to ease the process of capturing narratives and that clinical documentation and information retrieval should be enhanced by the design of the patient's record.
Handwriting for clinical data and order entry is perpetually becoming unpopular as the EHR adoptability becomes extensive. Most (if not all) clinicians, even those with minimal typing skills, eventually compromise the patient provided information due to their self-editing in the process of documenting a patient's narrative.
Dictation with transcription is the most efficient way to document patient visits. This will involve a competent transcriptionist. However, the result can hugely vary. The errors of transcription may result in generated inaccuracies in the medical record which will lead to delays in posting the final authenticated and certified note on the EHR. Entry of coded data can consume a lot of time and may fail to convey the accurate meaning of the patient's condition, which may affect the communication of intricate nuanced clinical information to patients or among clinicians.
There are several benefits of speed recognition in the EHR. Due to the improvements in speed recognition technology accuracy rate, its use has grown steadily among physicians in their quest to improve both the quality of documentation and work-flow processes. More benefits include significant reduction of transcription costs, reduction of document turnaround times and enhanced patient care due to increased accuracy and minimization of errors. Acceptable accuracy rates, complete medical vocabularies, and voice macro creation capabilities (which help in standardizing intricate documentation entry by employing easily-editable templates) are some of the features of speed recognizing technology application that have enhanced their implementation.
Just like any system, speed recognition in the EHR has its share of risks and drawbacks. Initially, clinicians may be adamant to change from a paper-based health record system to an electronic health record. The main obstacle here is the cost of switching. This especially affects those clinicians in the small practices who lack enough financial incentive to switch to computerized records. Other issues relate to comfort and tolerance, that is, how comfortable one is with this new technology of speed recognition in the EHR and how much one is tolerant with the errors and the willingness to correct them.
More research on speed recognition in the EHR is required to improve on the anticipated challenges. Time-saving, enhanced documentation and communication and any other tool that will lead to quality of patient care are the features that a clinician will be looking out for in this technology.