Front-end VR and back-end VR: A comparison
12/2/2013 9:32 AM
Recently, For the Record discussed the affect of front-end VR use on the documentation workflow in their article The Case for a ‘Front-End’ Alignment".
The argument seems to show some bias for front-end VR, but shares the benefits of back-end VR as an option for those that clinicians that do not have enough time to see patients, dictate notes and edit records.
Please note an inaccurate recount of the limits of back-end VR, saying, "A speaker-independent (back-end) process... is unaware of the speaker’s identity or the corrections being input, and always makes the same errors." Emdat's back-end VR solution is far more sophisticated then the capabilities mentioned here. In fact, each speaker has a unique identifer that tells the engine what voice to expect and builds a profile it learns from over time.
Still, the goal is to choose the method that works best for the individual clinician. Creating documentation that is thorough, accessible and easy to use is in the best interest of both the physician and the patient. The ideal approach is to provide a mobile solution that protects physician productivity while decreasing documentation costs.