PURPOSE: While search engines have become nearly ubiquitous on the Web, electronic health records (EHRs) generally lack search functionality; furthermore, there is no knowledge on how and what healthcare providers search while using an EHR-based search utility. In this study, we sought to understand user needs as captured by their search queries. METHODS: This post-implementation study analyzed user search log files for 6 months from an EHR-based, free-text search utility at our large academic institution. The search logs were de-identified and then analyzed in two steps. First, two investigators classified all the unique queries as navigational, transactional, or informational searches. Second, three physician reviewers categorized a random sample of 357 informational searches into high-level semantic types derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The reviewers were given overlapping data sets, such that two physicians reviewed each query. RESULTS: We analyzed 2207 queries performed by 436 unique users over a 6-month period. Of the 2207 queries, 980 were unique queries. Users of the search utility included clinicians, researchers and administrative staff. Across the whole user population, approximately 14.5% of the user searches were navigational searches and 85.1% were informational. Within informational searches, we found that users predominantly searched for laboratory results and specific diseases. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of user types, ranging from clinicians to administrative staff, took advantage of the EHR-based search utility. Though these users' search behavior differed, they predominantly performed informational searches related to laboratory results and specific diseases. Additionally, a number of queries were part of words, implying the need for a free-text module to be included in any future concept-based search algorithm. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: While search engines have become nearly ubiquitous on the Web, electronic health records (EHRs) generally lack search functionality; furthermore, there is no knowledge on how and what healthcare providers search while using an EHR-based search utility. In this study, we sought to understand user needs as captured by their search queries. METHODS: This post-implementation study analyzed user search log files for 6 months from an EHR-based, free-text search utility at our large academic institution. The search logs were de-identified and then analyzed in two steps. First, two investigators classified all the unique queries as navigational, transactional, or informational searches. Second, three physician reviewers categorized a random sample of 357 informational searches into high-level semantic types derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The reviewers were given overlapping data sets, such that two physicians reviewed each query. RESULTS: We analyzed 2207 queries performed by 436 unique users over a 6-month period. Of the 2207 queries, 980 were unique queries. Users of the search utility included clinicians, researchers and administrative staff. Across the whole user population, approximately 14.5% of the user searches were navigational searches and 85.1% were informational. Within informational searches, we found that users predominantly searched for laboratory results and specific diseases. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of user types, ranging from clinicians to administrative staff, took advantage of the EHR-based search utility. Though these users' search behavior differed, they predominantly performed informational searches related to laboratory results and specific diseases. Additionally, a number of queries were part of words, implying the need for a free-text module to be included in any future concept-based search algorithm. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: J A Osheroff; D E Forsythe; B G Buchanan; R A Bankowitz; B H Blumenfeld; R A Miller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1991-04-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Allie D Woods; David P Mulherin; Allen J Flynn; James G Stevenson; Christopher R Zimmerman; Bruce W Chaffee Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ya-Li Zheng; Xiao-Rong Ding; Carmen Chung Yan Poon; Benny Ping Lai Lo; Heye Zhang; Xiao-Lin Zhou; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ni Zhao; Yuan-Ting Zhang Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: David A Hanauer; Danny T Y Wu; Lei Yang; Qiaozhu Mei; Katherine B Murkowski-Steffy; V G Vinod Vydiswaran; Kai Zheng Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Yaa A Kumah-Crystal; Claude J Pirtle; Harrison M Whyte; Edward S Goode; Shilo H Anders; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 2.342