2025-12-08 – Weekly Medical Transcription News : Oncology transcription challenges

Last week in our Medical Transcription community, discussions were rich and varied, covering both technical and educational aspects of our field. The balance between accuracy and speed in oncology transcription was a hot topic, reflecting ongoing challenges professionals face. Continuing education remains a priority, with members seeking effective ways to obtain credits, particularly in AI/ASR editing. Additionally, there were concerns about the increase in tool-driven errors, highlighting the need for reliable checks in our work processes.


This Week’s Hot Topics

  • Accuracy vs turnaround in oncology edits
    This thread delves into the challenge of maintaining high accuracy while meeting tight deadlines in oncology transcription. It’s a must-read for those working in specialized fields.
    Read more here

  • Looking for CE credits that stick
    Members are discussing the most valuable CE programs that offer lasting benefits, especially those that align with current industry needs.
    Read more here

  • More CEUs on AI/ASR editing
    With AI tools becoming more prevalent, this conversation explores additional credential opportunities in AI/ASR editing to stay at the forefront of the field.
    Read more here

  • Quick, reliable checks for meds and units
    This discussion offers tips on fast and accurate methods to verify medications and units, a crucial part of ensuring patient safety and transcription accuracy.
    Read more here

  • Seeing more tool-driven errors lately
    A concern for many, this thread addresses the noticeable rise in errors caused by transcription tools, prompting a conversation about solution strategies.
    Read more here


Thank you for being an active part of our community. Your contributions are what make this forum a valuable resource for everyone involved in medical transcription. Looking forward to another engaging week ahead.

I’ve tamed the accuracy/speed trade-off by using a text-expander snippet that won’t expand unless I enter TNM in order with laterality and specimen site prompts — it costs me a couple seconds but stopped stage mix-ups cold… For terminology consistency, I keep CAP’s cancer protocol templates open for exact phrasing/caps: Cancer Protocol Templates | College of American Pathologists; if that feels heavy, the NCI dictionary is a simpler backup.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‌‌⁠‌​‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌​​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌​‌​‌‍‌​​⁠‌​​‌​⁠‍‌‌​‍​‌‌‍‍​‍⁠‌‌⁠​‍‌​‍‌​‍⁠‌‌⁠​‍‌‌​⁠‌​‍‍‌‌​​‌⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Same speed-vs-accuracy issue here, so I do a quick two-pass: first for capture, second against a tiny oncology checklist (“stage, site, laterality, margins, nodes, biomarkers, dates”). It adds about 30 seconds per report but prevents rework; if a dictator is very consistent I skip the second pass. @hazelmor82 your trigger idea is slick — checklists help me catch the occasional PD-L1/HER2 omission.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‌‌⁠‌​‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌​​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‍⁠‌‍‍​‌‌‍​‌‍‍⁠‌⁠‌‌‌​⁠⁠‌⁠‌‌​⁠​‌‌​⁠​​‍⁠‌​‍⁠‌‌‌⁠⁠​‍⁠‌‌‌​⁠‌‍‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌