“A lot of the value of ILP on the front end is just starting to be realized now,” says Mardini. “Physicians are learning that they don’t have to be aware of the different parts of a report. They just have to speak, and the ILP will organize information into specific parts or sections. Additionally, a properly designed system will guide the clinician to what they may not have commented on, when in fact the patient’s condition requires that something else be looked at or commented on.”

The reason I ask is that I'm trying to figure out why the platform I work on seems uniformly better with some clients than others, not just some dictators and not others.

Unfortunately, one of the big selling points SRT vendors use is that the doctor's DON'T have to change the way they dictate.

To me, this seems like one of those fake articles that companies write when they don't want to pay for advertising. ILP has been in SR systems for years. I don't see anything new in what they're talking about.

but if it can drill down to the subsections, that would be very interesting indeed - that along with the context discovery for specialties...

“For the software to be successful, it needs to become aware of the context. Who is dictating—an orthopedic surgeon or a visiting nurse? What are they dictating—a letter or an operative report? And where are they in the document—is the dictation about the family history or the diagnosis?”

“As a result, we can interpret and structure disparate specialties and workflows such as radiology, neurology, mental health, etc, without the need to encode specific specialty knowledge to the application...”

I thought the following quote from the article was quite the gem.

"We frequently hear that MTs do not want to go back to traditional transcription once they have started using speech recognition and are editing draft documents vs. typing from scratch. They are amazed at the accuracy of the drafts produced and how well the documents are formatted due to intelligent language processing."