Table 6 Voice-to-Text Clinical Evaluation Scale (V2T-CES) Assessment Framework
V2T-CES Assessment Items | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation Criteria | Rating Scale | ||||
I. Accuracy Dimension | |||||
1. How well does the system recognize specialized ophthalmological terminology compared to general medical terms? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
2. How effectively does the system automatically correct errors caused by accent variations or speech rate changes? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
3. How accurately does the system transcribe speech in noisy clinical environments (operating rooms, patient areas)? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
II. Efficiency Dimension | |||||
4. Does the system achieve at least 50% time savings compared to manual keyboard input for documentation? (≥ 50% time savings vs. manual input) | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
5. How much does the system reduce the need for manual confirmation and correction of transcribed text? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
6. How well does the system automatically populate structured EMR fields from voice input? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
III. System Performance | |||||
7. How effectively does the system use clinical context to correct transcription errors and improve accuracy? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
8. How seamlessly does the system integrate with existing EMR workflows without disrupting clinical operations? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
9. How well does the system support hands-free operation during patient examinations and procedures? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
IV. Overall Assessment | |||||
10. Overall, how much does this system optimize your clinical documentation workflow compared to current methods? | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
