The voice-recognition software is not a threat to the job of a provider of digital transcription services. Yes, when it came into being, it was touted to be a substitute for a transcriptionist. But, eventually, the limitations of the software kept it from becoming a threat to a provider of digital transcription services. Let me explain its limitations.
The software needs to be ‘trained’. And not just by anybody but by the doctors who will be using it. A doctor has to familiarize the software with his/her voice by speaking into it over and over again. And doctors are always pressed for time. They cannot be expected to spend time and effort training the software.
Doctors are required to spend a considerable amount of time using the software. They are required to dictate clearly and precisely. They are also required to make sure that they record information in a noise-free environment. The effort for recording medical information becomes equivalent to the effort for creating a medical document without the software. This beats the whole purpose of saving the time of doctors.
Even after all the time and effort put in by the doctors, the software does not deliver accurate results. And it is obvious given that the quality of its results is directly proportional to the input.
Human intervention is required in order to make sense of the information transcribed by the software. Who better to create complete and meaningful records than the medical transcriptionist? The software cannot think or analyze like the human transcriptionist. This brings us back to square one.
Providers of digital transcription services have started using the software to their advantage, letting it create the first draft of transcription.