The people I work with don't relay want an exact transcription, they like how it formats it into a SOAP or other standard way.
They are "supposed" to review each and every note but I see things in the notes I know are incorrect like for example it gets the gender wrong or there are health problems raised which I know the person does not have. Many other times I see things which may be wrong but I can't for sure tell. It could have happened that way. But it's a bit weird.
A responsible design trick might actually be to hide intentional errors in the provided text and then have the charts audited at a later date (by a human) to see if those were left in.
I have warned the people I work with that when the VC makes them go public, all the "agreements" made about confidentiality of data will be out the window, to say nothing of the so-far acceptable cost of services.
My hypothesis is that this is a way of getting training data. The business is not really doing ai scribe, it's convincing HCPs to make patients comfortable allowing ML on their visits. Especially in the set ups where the vendor can then review the note the clinician actually creates and digest that as well. Like how google is a search engine but it's really a business to profile people for targeted ads.
Also I agree with you that making notes is not purely an administrative afterthought. Documentation is part of the cognitive work. That's why there are so many forms, tools, scales, flowcharts, acronyms, standards, templates, and such. It isn't just about recording what happened. It is about structuring your thoughts prior, during and after the visit. And being able to compare them over time.
I agree but someone (?) needs to get that app out and certified and known ASAP because the ones already in the market
If you want to give your health care provider a small panic attack, just mention the word "migration" as is "migrate to a new computer system". Nobody wants to do it. Once something "works" (using the broadest definition of the term) it will be kept as long as possible.
There are models for this that are better in theory, they require you to type rough notes which are refined which sidesteps the gigantic issue of transmitting such sensitive audio.
I have never seen anything that starts with typing?
Also for some reason many of the companies offering systems that audio record sessions, transcribe, and summarize (over just summarizing text notes) are Israeli and that is sketch to me.
have also noticed it. I have on my to do list to look into these. hmu if you find anything. fuck knows what the training data is for. We have campaigns to divest HOOP from israel and I think AI should be included.
I work in a place that is using these. The reason they are sending it out is that there is a very low level of comfort with tech and the outside company is "taking care of" a lot of messiness. The fact of the matter is there is no in-house capability for this, You should have seen us trying to replace the toner (or was it the drum?) in the fax machine yesterday. The first company with a "nice" UI will have market dominance. Not for technical, but for social reasons.
The concept that early detection is always of benefit in long term disease outcomes has recently come under scrutiny and has been discredited or moderated in a number of areas. PSA tests in average risk, asymptomatic people being very prominent. They were found to cause significantly more harm than benefit which is why you don't see PSAs (ha) telling you check your PSA all the time anymore.
Claiming that any kind of diagnostic imaging will make a dent in a massively common problem is ridiculous. I see no reason to believe that, just a lot of marketing hype. They don't even say what specific problems they are supposed to be preventing, or treating, or finding, or whatever. "Cardiac disease" is a large category. It's like saying "skin problems" or "mental health".
It looks like these people are claiming to be able to perform a cardiac doppler and/or ultrasound? It specifically says it does not interpret it. It produces the image. Generally speaking, that's the easier part of the job.
I tried to look up what the value of a doppler might be in screening for cardiac disease. Most analysis and guidelines about cardiac screening do not even mention dopplers. Some mention very specific ultrasounds in specific situations. Always along with a bunch of other stuff.
The most general screening for cardiac disease are blood pressure, family history, a risk calculation (like Framingham which you can do online), and sometimes a few simple blood tests.
All in all the claims being made here are ostentatious and unrealistic. This device may have some kind of application but it is not what is claimed here.
I work in a medical environment where the doctors are using AI to assist in note taking. They ask consent at the beginning of the visit and 99% of people agree. They like to do it before going into their office so they can just leave the mic on and nothing gets missed fiddling with equipment. So I hear it as they go by. There's no hesitation.
Many of these people are highly suspicious of medical care, authority, the government. All kinds of wacky conspiracy theories going around. Yet nobody bats an eye when asked if their intimate conversation can be recorded and verbatim transcribed to be processed on a remote server. Due to high rates of acceptance among doctors and subsequently their patients, it is on track to be integrated into the computer system.
Other facilities are using similar software but not obtaining consent. I don't know if the doctors are supposed to but lax about it, or maybe you agree to it in some kind of blanket waiver when you obtain care.
I think in a lot of places you'd have a difficult and uphill battle to get a legal finding that the sound of heart beats would be considered confidential. If you got home and had adverts as a result of it, it would have to be because the facility provided your contact info with it, which isn't what's at issue here. Also, if you had a heart attack, you will end up being cared for in a cardiology unit. They don't really need the sound of your heart to infer cardiac issues if you are on a cardiac unit. Can probably just use location data like GPS, call towers and wifi hotspot collection to do so already.
But you are correct that this will never see application in low-resource situations. It's a pointless idea. If you don't have someone who is skilled enough to listen to the heart, then you don't have anyone skilled enough to to treat the problems that could arise. This will be a gizmo for rich worried well people.
The people I work with don't relay want an exact transcription, they like how it formats it into a SOAP or other standard way.
They are "supposed" to review each and every note but I see things in the notes I know are incorrect like for example it gets the gender wrong or there are health problems raised which I know the person does not have. Many other times I see things which may be wrong but I can't for sure tell. It could have happened that way. But it's a bit weird.
A responsible design trick might actually be to hide intentional errors in the provided text and then have the charts audited at a later date (by a human) to see if those were left in.
I have warned the people I work with that when the VC makes them go public, all the "agreements" made about confidentiality of data will be out the window, to say nothing of the so-far acceptable cost of services.
My hypothesis is that this is a way of getting training data. The business is not really doing ai scribe, it's convincing HCPs to make patients comfortable allowing ML on their visits. Especially in the set ups where the vendor can then review the note the clinician actually creates and digest that as well. Like how google is a search engine but it's really a business to profile people for targeted ads.
Also I agree with you that making notes is not purely an administrative afterthought. Documentation is part of the cognitive work. That's why there are so many forms, tools, scales, flowcharts, acronyms, standards, templates, and such. It isn't just about recording what happened. It is about structuring your thoughts prior, during and after the visit. And being able to compare them over time.
I agree but someone (?) needs to get that app out and certified and known ASAP because the ones already in the market
If you want to give your health care provider a small panic attack, just mention the word "migration" as is "migrate to a new computer system". Nobody wants to do it. Once something "works" (using the broadest definition of the term) it will be kept as long as possible.
they are very good at being human. and using the human side of tech, like social media, chats, zooms.
they are not good at being technicians. or selecting someone else to be a technician on their behalf.
I have never seen anything that starts with typing?
have also noticed it. I have on my to do list to look into these. hmu if you find anything. fuck knows what the training data is for. We have campaigns to divest HOOP from israel and I think AI should be included.
making it about individual choice is an error. 98% of people agree because the person who is asking permission has so much power. we need regulations.
I work in a place that is using these. The reason they are sending it out is that there is a very low level of comfort with tech and the outside company is "taking care of" a lot of messiness. The fact of the matter is there is no in-house capability for this, You should have seen us trying to replace the toner (or was it the drum?) in the fax machine yesterday. The first company with a "nice" UI will have market dominance. Not for technical, but for social reasons.
That start up is extremely silly.
The concept that early detection is always of benefit in long term disease outcomes has recently come under scrutiny and has been discredited or moderated in a number of areas. PSA tests in average risk, asymptomatic people being very prominent. They were found to cause significantly more harm than benefit which is why you don't see PSAs (ha) telling you check your PSA all the time anymore.
Claiming that any kind of diagnostic imaging will make a dent in a massively common problem is ridiculous. I see no reason to believe that, just a lot of marketing hype. They don't even say what specific problems they are supposed to be preventing, or treating, or finding, or whatever. "Cardiac disease" is a large category. It's like saying "skin problems" or "mental health".
It looks like these people are claiming to be able to perform a cardiac doppler and/or ultrasound? It specifically says it does not interpret it. It produces the image. Generally speaking, that's the easier part of the job.
I tried to look up what the value of a doppler might be in screening for cardiac disease. Most analysis and guidelines about cardiac screening do not even mention dopplers. Some mention very specific ultrasounds in specific situations. Always along with a bunch of other stuff.
See example - table 3 summary of reccomendations --- try to find anything there that has any apparent relationship to this app.
The most general screening for cardiac disease are blood pressure, family history, a risk calculation (like Framingham which you can do online), and sometimes a few simple blood tests.
All in all the claims being made here are ostentatious and unrealistic. This device may have some kind of application but it is not what is claimed here.
I work in a medical environment where the doctors are using AI to assist in note taking. They ask consent at the beginning of the visit and 99% of people agree. They like to do it before going into their office so they can just leave the mic on and nothing gets missed fiddling with equipment. So I hear it as they go by. There's no hesitation.
Many of these people are highly suspicious of medical care, authority, the government. All kinds of wacky conspiracy theories going around. Yet nobody bats an eye when asked if their intimate conversation can be recorded and verbatim transcribed to be processed on a remote server. Due to high rates of acceptance among doctors and subsequently their patients, it is on track to be integrated into the computer system.
Other facilities are using similar software but not obtaining consent. I don't know if the doctors are supposed to but lax about it, or maybe you agree to it in some kind of blanket waiver when you obtain care.
I think in a lot of places you'd have a difficult and uphill battle to get a legal finding that the sound of heart beats would be considered confidential. If you got home and had adverts as a result of it, it would have to be because the facility provided your contact info with it, which isn't what's at issue here. Also, if you had a heart attack, you will end up being cared for in a cardiology unit. They don't really need the sound of your heart to infer cardiac issues if you are on a cardiac unit. Can probably just use location data like GPS, call towers and wifi hotspot collection to do so already.
But you are correct that this will never see application in low-resource situations. It's a pointless idea. If you don't have someone who is skilled enough to listen to the heart, then you don't have anyone skilled enough to to treat the problems that could arise. This will be a gizmo for rich worried well people.