We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Visual communication aids, such as handwriting or typing, are often used to communicate with deaf patients in the clinic. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of communicating through smartphone speech recognition software compared with writing or typing.
Method:
Thirty doctors and medical students were timed writing, typing and dictating a standard set of six sentences appropriate for a post-operative consultation, and the results were assessed for accuracy and legibility.
Results:
The mean time for smartphone dictation (17.8 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 17.0–18.7) was significantly faster than writing (59.2 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 56.6–61.7) or typing (44 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 41.0–47.1) (p < 0.001). Speech recognition was slightly less accurate, but accuracy increased with time spent dictating.
Conclusion:
Smartphone dictation is a feasible alternative to typing and handwriting. Slow speech may improve accuracy. Early clinical experience has been promising.
Practice-based performance measurement is fundamental for improvement and accountability in primary care. Traditional performance measurement of the patient’s experience is often too costly and cumbersome for most practices.
Objective/Methods
This scoping review explores the literature on the use of interactive voice response (IVR) telephone surveys to identify lessons for its use for collecting data on patient-reported outcome measures at the primary care practice level.
Results
The literature suggests IVR could potentially increase the capacity to reach more representative patient samples and those traditionally most difficult to engage. There is potential for long-term cost effectiveness and significant decrease of the burden on practices involved in collecting patient survey data. Challenges such as low response rates, mode effects, high initial set-up costs and maintenance fees, are also reported and require careful attention.
Conclusion
This review suggests IVR may be a feasible alternative to traditional patient data collection methods, which should be further explored.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.