  In recent years, machine learning models have rapidly become better at
generating clinical consultation notes; yet, there is little work on how to
properly evaluate the generated consultation notes to understand the impact
they may have on both the clinician using them and the patient's clinical
safety. To address this we present an extensive human evaluation study of
consultation notes where 5 clinicians (i) listen to 57 mock consultations, (ii)
write their own notes, (iii) post-edit a number of automatically generated
notes, and (iv) extract all the errors, both quantitative and qualitative. We
then carry out a correlation study with 18 automatic quality metrics and the
human judgements. We find that a simple, character-based Levenshtein distance
metric performs on par if not better than common model-based metrics like
BertScore. All our findings and annotations are open-sourced.
