PURPOSE: Electronic medical records (EMRs) have become part of daily practice for many physicians. Attempts have been made to apply electronic search engine technology to speed EMR review. This was a prospective, observational study to compare the speed and clinical accuracy of a medical record search engine vs. manual review of the EMR. METHODS: Three raters reviewed 49 cases in the EMR to screen for eligibility in a depression study using the electronic medical record search engine (EMERSE). One week later raters received a scrambled set of the same patients including 9 distractor cases, and used manual EMR review to determine eligibility. For both methods, accuracy was assessed for the original 49 cases by comparison with a gold standard rater. RESULTS: Use of EMERSE resulted in considerable time savings; chart reviews using EMERSE were significantly faster than traditional manual review (p=0.03). The percent agreement of raters with the gold standard (e.g. concurrent validity) using either EMERSE or manual review was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Using a search engine optimized for finding clinical information in the free-text sections of the EMR can provide significant time savings while preserving clinical accuracy. The major power of this search engine is not from a more advanced and sophisticated search algorithm, but rather from a user interface designed explicitly to help users search the entire medical record in a way that protects health information.
PURPOSE: Electronic medical records (EMRs) have become part of daily practice for many physicians. Attempts have been made to apply electronic search engine technology to speed EMR review. This was a prospective, observational study to compare the speed and clinical accuracy of a medical record search engine vs. manual review of the EMR. METHODS: Three raters reviewed 49 cases in the EMR to screen for eligibility in a depression study using the electronic medical record search engine (EMERSE). One week later raters received a scrambled set of the same patients including 9 distractor cases, and used manual EMR review to determine eligibility. For both methods, accuracy was assessed for the original 49 cases by comparison with a gold standard rater. RESULTS: Use of EMERSE resulted in considerable time savings; chart reviews using EMERSE were significantly faster than traditional manual review (p=0.03). The percent agreement of raters with the gold standard (e.g. concurrent validity) using either EMERSE or manual review was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Using a search engine optimized for finding clinical information in the free-text sections of the EMR can provide significant time savings while preserving clinical accuracy. The major power of this search engine is not from a more advanced and sophisticated search algorithm, but rather from a user interface designed explicitly to help users search the entire medical record in a way that protects health information.
Authors: John M Fisk; Pradeep Mutalik; Forrest W Levin; Joseph Erdos; Caroline Taylor; Prakash Nadkarni Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steven R Simon; Madeline L McCarthy; Rainu Kaushal; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Eric G Poon; Kevin C Yee; E John Orav; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Jeffrey M Ferranti; William Gilbert; Jonathan McCall; Howard Shang; Tanya Barros; Monica M Horvath Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jonathan S Schildcrout; Melissa A Basford; Jill M Pulley; Daniel R Masys; Dan M Roden; Deede Wang; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; David Carrell; Peggy Peissig; Abel Kho; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Nhi-Ha T Trinh; Soo Jeong Youn; Jessica Sousa; Susan Regan; C Andres Bedoya; Trina E Chang; Maurizio Fava; Albert Yeung Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Ryan M Silwanowicz; Donovan T Maust; Lisa S Seyfried; Claire Chiang; Claire Stano; Helen C Kales Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 3.485