I want AI to transcribe my clinical dictation but I'm worried about clinical inaccuracies
"I dictate everything and my secretary types it up. It takes two days and she makes errors I have to correct. But every time I look at AI transcription I worry about hallucinations in clinical notes."
Can you adopt AI transcription without clinical risk?
Accuracy risk can't be reduced to one number, it's about your safeguards. Answer four questions for a safety-readiness read and the controls to put in place.
Answer all 4 questions to see your readiness.
Takes two minutes. A free, no-obligation chat with Solva.
- A clinician dictating 20 documents per day with a two-day turnaround spends an average of 45 minutes per day reviewing and correcting human transcription errors, worth over £32,000 per year at £200 per hour
- Running a 50-document parallel trial, where the same audio is transcribed by both AI and a human, typically shows comparable accuracy rates and immediately builds confidence in the AI tool before full adoption
- A review workflow where AI transcription is checked before sending adds approximately three to five minutes per document versus the ten to twenty minutes currently spent on human transcription error correction
- The dictation backlog remains, creating delays in correspondence that affect referrer relationships
- Clinician time is spent correcting human transcription errors rather than on clinical work
- The PA is overloaded with transcription that AI could handle
- Patient letters and reports take longer to produce than they should
- The practice falls behind competitors who have adopted AI transcription without incident
- The AI tool category is not differentiated from general consumer transcription tools
- A review workflow is not planned as part of the implementation
- Healthcare-specific tools with clinical vocabulary are not evaluated separately from general AI
- The current human transcription error rate is not measured and is assumed to be lower than it is
- The trial approach is not considered as a way to build evidence before committing
How to fix it
Run a structured trial comparing AI transcription output to human transcription on 50 documents using the same source audio Select a healthcare-specific AI transcription tool with a UK clinical vocabulary and uncertainty flagging Implement a review workflow where AI transcription is checked by the consultant or PA before finalisation
From Paul
I'll show you the three things costing you most, and what I'd fix first.
A few quick questions, about two minutes, and no typing. I read every one myself and reply with the three things costing you most and where I'd start. If it's useful, we talk. If not, you've still got a clear picture.
No obligation, no sales call unless you ask for one, and nothing automated lands in your inbox.
Paul, Solvable
Frequently asked questions
Why does this problem persist?
The comparison is AI versus ideal human transcription rather than AI versus current practice The specific error types in AI clinical transcription are not understood or compared to human error types No trial has been conducted on a subset of non-critical dictation to test the actual performance
What is the cost of leaving it unaddressed?
A consultant dictating 20 documents per day with a two-day turnaround and a correction rate of 5% spends an average of 45 minutes per day on transcription-related correction. At £200 per hour, that is over £32,000 per year in clinician correction time.
This is exactly what I do with UK private practices. Answer the few questions above and I'll come back personally with where to start. Paul.