Accuracy of the BOS 2nd (sm)
Posted By: CuriousMLS on 2005-10-23
In Reply to:
Has anyone else on the board had problems with the revised edition of the BOS? I recently tested for a high level client and they had their "own way" of doing things. Since they were in the business of teaching academic subjects at a very high level, the argument about the new BOS went over like a lead balloon. They had their own rules. I was ashamed of what I turned in, although I did follow our own MLS new rules. Anyone else getting demerits for changing over?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
98% accuracy - sm
Please help an old horse understand -- to have 98% accuracy what does that exactly mean? If I do an account that has an average of 10,000 to 12,000 lines per month -- what do I need to know to see if I have 98% accuracy? Sounds stupid I know but just wondering. Also do minor errors such as leaving an "e" off HERE versus misspelling a drug or procedure count more? I have an account that suddenly tells me that my accuracy is going down but they won't send me back any errors, and said that they just "cross them out" -- so I have asked them to at least let me know what days/patients have "errors" so I can go back and look and try to find them. But I am just curious as to how to figure up this accuracy rate that everyone is talking about -- Thanks to all of you.
Accuracy
To my understanding, standards may vary by company. My company has a weighted system. There are minor, major, and critical errors. When we receive our evaluations, we are shown exactly which reports where checked and exactly what errors were marked and exactly what weight those errors were given, so we have no question as to how our score was arrived at. It's too bad your company won't do the same for you.
Not sure of accuracy, but here's the
Straight Dope scoop: The truth about the boy with "two spiders living in his ear."
24-May-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Straight Dope:
Today I was reading an article on CNN's website (www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/07/spiderboy.ap/index.html) about a boy who apparently had two spiders living in his ear – quite unnerving really. What intrigued me, though, is that the article stated that the spiders were feeding off the boy's earwax. I wasn't aware that earwax could sustain life, other than some microorganisms of course. Is this article merely speculating or is there some truth to this "earwax for food" claim? —Cameron Williams
SDSTAFF Doug replies:
You demonstrate a useful trait which fewer people in the U.S. seem to have now than ever before in our history: healthy skepticism. While U.S. medical professionals are among the finest and best-trained in the world, one thing they do not teach you in med school is the life history of spiders. As for the U.S. media, especially the numerous bloggers who chimed in on this story, expectations are even lower, and journalists fully lived up (or down) to them, presumably because the story had such a magically bizarre ring to it that the capacity for critical thinking was suspended. Combine these elements and you have the makings of an urban legend.
Now for the facts. First, all spiders are predatory in the strictest sense – without exception, they only eat what they can kill. There aren't even spiders that suck blood from a living host as a mosquito does, let alone any that can feed on earwax. Second, anyone who knows about spiders would have realized instantly what the doctor found in that boy's ear: a single spider that had crawled in seeking a secure spot in which to shed its skin. Look at the photos: There's one spider, plus the old skin it shed. Anyone can recognize this once it's been pointed out. So the story was wrong on three counts: (1) there weren't spiderS, just one spider; (2) it wasn't "living in" his ear, it was hiding there temporarily while its exoskeleton hardened after molting; and (3) it wasn't feeding on anything. A spider before and after molting doesn't feed, and never eats earwax when it does feed.
So the doctor got it wrong, and reporters passed along the misinformation without doing any fact-checking. To confirm this, I called Dr. David J. Irvine, the doctor in Oregon who removed the spider from the boy's ear. He admits that yes, he initially believed there were two spiders, but now recognizes that there was in fact a single spider and its shed skin, and he doesn't object to going on the record as recanting his original testimony, as it were. Dr. Irvine also says (and I have no reason to dispute this) that when he talked to reporters and was asked whether the spiders had been feeding on earwax, he did in fact say that as far as he knew, all spiders were predatory. In other words, the doctor isn't the person who started that part of the rumor – that's entirely the fault of the reporters.
Sadly, none of the journalists involved ever thought to ask the simple question you did, or this story would never have gotten the attention it did. I'm sure we'll all be hearing about this incident, and the urban legends it will inspire, for decades to come. But at least the readers of the Straight Dope will know the truth.
—SDSTAFF Doug
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
Just 98% accuracy?????
What happened to 100% when typing. The company I work for strives for 100%. We do not leave any blanks on our reports or they are sent through QA and it will go through each Editor to see if they can complete this report at 100%. This is what makes a successful company and sets some companies apart from the others.
Not everyone hears the same thing 100% of the time. No one is perfect and there is no one who knows everything.
You are pathetic!!!!!
% of accuracy
I have only been doing medical transcription since August, 2007. Can someone please tell me how to determine your level of accuracy? I have seen before where companies require 98% accuracy. Is this the norm? I feel that I am above 98% but how do I know for sure?
yea, accuracy is best
I correct as I go. The error is fresh in my head, so it is easy to correct it right away rather than forget it and the context so it might get missed by the checker. Also, it would probably take more time using the spell checker to fix them. I try to type every sentence correct as I go so I don't have to correct later. The only things I skip and go back to are names and names of places, stuff I have to look up on the internet, that I do at the end all at once. Wow this was a long message lacking decent grammar, oh such is life...plus I just woke up and tend to ramble when I do so.
VR accuracy.
Dictated: Mucous membranes were dry.
VR translation: Mucous membranes were red wine.
What???? Last week I had a dictator say that the patient had a rash. VR translated that the patient had cancer. There's a bit of a difference between a rash and cancer, I would think.
Although MT accuracy is very important,
I think the source of dosing medication comes mostly from the physician's order sheet. I agree with the other poster that a cascading effect is very possible when later dictation and charting is based on the previous records. Also, there are other safeguards and checks made in terms of operations, and they would not be based simply on the H&P. If a doctor bases any operation on just an H&P I would consider him incompetent. This does not excuse the MT who is not careful in documentation.
Accuracy in counting
<Disclaimer: We are the publishers of MPCount / MPTools>
No cook can please everyone with just one soup recipe, and no software will suit each and every user. I'm glad you found a program you really like. 
We're proud of the accuracy of the counting in our software, and even have a page discussing it.
Best wishes,
Vann Joe
I wonder how their accuracy is given this article
Speech recognition technology shows double-digit error rate11/30/2006
By: Jonathan S. BatchelorCHICAGO -
A study of radiology reports generated by speech recognition software at a prestigious U.S. academic medical center found that even with fully trained system users the technology was introducing significant errors in almost one out of five signed, final reports. We structured a study where we could look at the types of errors and frequency of errors in attending dictated reports using Voice recognition software, said Dr. Ronald Dolin, who is from the department of radiology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dolin and his team retrospectively reviewed radiology reports dictated and signed by attending radiologists from February to March 2006 at Thomas Jefferson.
According to Dolin, all radiology reports at the institution were generated using PowerScribe 4.7 from Dictaphone/Nuance Communications of Burlington, MA, which had been implemented for 16 months prior to the start of the study. A total of 395 reports, consisting of five to 10 consecutive reports from each of the 41 attending radiologists, were reviewed, according to the researchers. They categorized the dictation errors into 10 subtypes, such as missing word errors, wrong word errors, extra word errors, nonsense phrase, unclear meaning phrase, or abnormal phrase with meaning intact. Errors were classified as significant if they altered or obscured the meaning of the sentence in which they appeared, Dolan said.
A total of 239 errors were identified in 146 of 395 reviewed reports for an overall error rate in final reports of 37%, he reported. In addition, he noted that at least one error was identified in reports from 40 of the 41 attending radiologists at Thomas Jefferson. The researchers found that missing or extra words that did not alter the meaning of a sentence constituted 113 of the 239 errors, or 47% of the total. This type of error was found in the reports of 33, or 81%, of the attending radiologists, Dolan said. Other common errors reported by the scientists included the wrong word, which accounted for 21% of the total errors; typographical or grammatical errors accounted for 8.8% of the total; a nonsense phrase with unknown meaning showed up in 11% of the total errors; and an error in the dictation date presented in 2.9% of the erroneous reports. Most of the speech recognition technology errors, 83%, did not alter the meaning of the report, Dolin noted. However, the remaining 17% of the errors could have impacted patient care. Significant errors -- errors that could conceivably alter a patient outcome -- accounted for 40 of the 239 error total. He said that significant errors were found in 54% of the attending radiologist reports and that five radiologists had two or more significant errors. Dolin acknowledged that he set the criteria for classification of significant errors and determined what was and was not a significant error.
During a discussion of the research after the presentation, a few audience members vigorously expressed their belief that Dolin's standard for significance had not been inclusive enough. Rather than being a condemnation of the technology, Dolin believes that his study can provide a method for Quality Assurance and continuing education in the vagaries of speech recognition software. A periodic audit of a relatively small number of radiology reports, such as five to 10 reports per radiologist, can identify significant Voice recognition error patterns among the group and by individuals, and can assist in efforts to mitigate these problems, he said. By Jonathan S. BatchelorAuntMinnie.com staff writerNovember 30, 2006
98% accuracy configuration
I would also like to know how to calculate this. I received a 96% on a transcription test for Transcription Relief, but I needed a 98% to work for them.
What's with all this smugness about your accuracy, and
Hope you're not an MT supervisor - you'd be a real pill to work with.
98% is the norm for accuracy
and most companies have their own QA system of assigning point deductions per error divided by line count. If you have a way to review your reports after they go through QA you should be able to see what your percentage is. If not, ask QA.
Apparently? what was your accuracy, what did they tell you?
nm
That seems silly. Accuracy, yes, but speed, too.
Why would you want to hire someone with 99% accuracy who could only type 30 wpm? Telling a potential employer you can type quickly in a test situation doesn't mean you're automatically fast and sloppy. Besides that, typing tests take accuracy into consideration. How about 99%+ accuracy with a typing speed of 90 wpm? Speed is a huge part of this job, especially considering TAT and pay on production.
Yes there are people actually good enough to hit 98% accuracy. Happens every day!!!!! sm
QA has only become a real job in the last 10 years. Before that there was 1 QA person for every roughly 100 MTs!!!
If you aren't paying me to do 100% accuracy
x
Agree. Accuracy is most important, and
you can't let pride interfere when it comes to patient safety. This job is a learning process & we will always have new terms to learn & get marked for errors -- it's just part of the job, and you have to learn to look at it as a learning opportunity, not an insult, in order to thrive at this job.
The swiftness and accuracy of proofreading is mainly reflected by (sm)
length of experience, as well as your fund of medical terminology knowledge. I am fortunate in that years ago I took an Evelyn Wood Speed Reading course. I would suggest trying different methods, such as those you stated, until you feel what is most comfortable for you, in addition to producing error-free reports.
Most MT co's REQUIRE 98% accuracy in order to stay - sm
employed. I've had to do 98% accurate work for years - it's no big deal. There's not an MT alive who is always 100% accurate. There ain't no such animal. But what I'm talking about is QA's that take a report that IS 100% accurate, and 'create' an inaccurate report out of it. I don't know if they're just bored, or spiteful, or if they have a minimum work quota like all the rest of us do, but jacking up a perfectly good report and sending it back with 'errors', (and no initials, so you can't call your co. and COMPLAIN about them), is a royal pain. I think they get paid more money, the more reports they mark up, and as is so often the case, in that field too, it's 'quantity over quality'. The Almighty Dollar, again.
I've had problems with Abacus' accuracy in the past.
.
Never said that typos were acceptable, what I said was is 100% accuracy expected 100% of the time.
Yes, I used to work in a docs office doing this as well as other things and but never had this problem.That is why I am frustrated. My question was whether or not there was a curve for MT'ing or not. I guess I just was not clear on exactly what editors/QA were really meant for. I thought they were more of a saftey net for a TX company to ensure that everythign that goes out is what it should be. But I guess I was mistaken.
Anyway, I was thinking that maybe there was something else similar in this field that would be an option for me to do. Since I actually like this line of work, I don't see why I should give up so easily.
Lastly, its just me, but I actually think staying at home with my kids is a perfect reason to do this for a living. I mean seeing as though I actually do want to earn a honest living doing something that I have experience doing ...why not? It's better than relying the government for money to support my family isn't it?
|
