CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(03): 417-428
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730033
Review Article

Use, Impact, Weaknesses, and Advanced Features of Search Functions for Clinical Use in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review

Jordan R. Hill
1   Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Shyam Visweswaran
2   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Xia Ning
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
4   Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
5   Translational Data Analytics Institute, The Ohio State University, Ohio, United States
Titus K. Schleyer
1   Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
6   Center for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding This project was made possible, in part, by support from the National Library of Medicine (Grant Nos. R01LM012605–01A1 and R01LM012095), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Grant No. 1R01HS027185–01A1), with support from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (funded in part by Award Number UL1TR002529 from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences) Clinical and Translational Sciences Award, and the Lilly Endowment, Inc. Physician Scientist Initiative. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.


Objective Although vast amounts of patient information are captured in electronic health records (EHRs), effective clinical use of this information is challenging due to inadequate and inefficient access to it at the point of care. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature on the use of EHR search functions within a single patient's record in clinical settings to characterize the current state of research on the topic and identify areas for future study.

Methods We conducted a literature search of four databases to identify articles on within-EHR search functions or the use of EHR search function in the context of clinical tasks. After reviewing titles and abstracts and performing a full-text review of selected articles, we included 17 articles in the analysis. We qualitatively identified themes in those articles and synthesized the literature for each theme.

Results Based on the 17 articles analyzed, we delineated four themes: (1) how clinicians use search functions, (2) impact of search functions on clinical workflow, (3) weaknesses of current search functions, and (4) advanced search features. Our review found that search functions generally facilitate patient information retrieval by clinicians and are positively received by users. However, existing search functions have weaknesses, such as yielding false negatives and false positives, which can decrease trust in the results, and requiring a high cognitive load to perform an inclusive search of a patient's record.

Conclusion Despite the widespread adoption of EHRs, only a limited number of articles describe the use of EHR search functions in a clinical setting, despite evidence that they benefit clinician workflow and productivity. Some of the weaknesses of current search functions may be addressed by enhancing EHR search functions with collaborative filtering.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

No human or animal subjects were involved in this study.

Publication History

Received: 22 January 2021

Accepted: 30 March 2021

Article published online:
14 July 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (15) 1477-1479
  • 2 The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospital Electronic Health Record Adoption. 2017 . Accessed December 28, 2020 at:
  • 3 The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Office-Based Physician Electronic Health Record Adoption. 2017 . Accessed December 28, 2020 at:
  • 4 Pylypchuk Y, Johnson C, Patel V. State of Interoperability among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals in 2018. 2020 . Available at:
  • 5 The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap. Available at:
  • 6 Ross MK, Wei W, Ohno-Machado L. “Big data” and the electronic health record. Yearb Med Inform 2014; 9 (01) 97-104
  • 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Electronic Medical Records/Electronic Health Records (EMRs/EHRs). National Center for Health Statistics. 2010 . Accessed March 12, 2021 at:
  • 8 Halamka J. The Cost of Storing Patient Records. GeekDoctor. 2011 . Accessed December 14, 2020 at:
  • 9 Gal DB, Han B, Longhurst C, Scheinker D, Shin AY. Quantifying electronic health record data: a potential risk for cognitive overload. Hosp Pediatr 2021; 11 (02) 175-178
  • 10 Donovan F. Organizations See 878% Health Data Growth Rate Since 2016. HIT Infrastructure. 2019 . Accessed December 14, 2020 at:
  • 11 Munyisia E, Yu P, Hailey D. The effect of an electronic health record system on nursing staff time in a nursing home: a longitudinal cohort study. Australas Med J 2014; 7 (07) 285-293
  • 12 Rojo MG, Castro AM, Gonçalves L. COST action “EuroTelepath”: digital pathology integration in electronic health record, including primary care centres. Diagn Pathol 2011; 6 (01, Suppl 1): S6
  • 13 Wilkerson ML, Henricks WH, Castellani WJ, Whitsitt MS, Sinard JH. Management of laboratory data and information exchange in the electronic health record. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139 (03) 319-327
  • 14 Politi L, Codish S, Sagy I, Fink L. Balancing volume and duration of information consumption by physicians: the case of health information exchange in critical care. J Biomed Inform 2017; 71: 1-15
  • 15 Overhage JM, McCallie Jr D. Physician time spent using the electronic health record during outpatient encounters: a descriptive study. Ann Intern Med 2020; 172 (03) 169-174
  • 16 Hill Jr RG, Sears LM, Melanson SW. 4000 clicks: a productivity analysis of electronic medical records in a community hospital ED. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31 (11) 1591-1594
  • 17 Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L. et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165 (11) 753-761
  • 18 Ruppel H, Bhardwaj A, Manickam RN. et al. Assessment of electronic health record search patterns and practices by practitioners in a large integrated health care system. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (03) e200512
  • 19 Holmgren JA, Downing NL, Bates DW. et al. Assessment of electronic health record use between US and non-US health systems. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 18 (02) 251-259
  • 20 Mazur LM, Mosaly PR, Moore C, Marks L. Association of the usability of electronic health records with cognitive workload and performance levels among physicians. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (04) e191709
  • 21 Christensen T, Grimsmo A. Instant availability of patient records, but diminished availability of patient information: a multi-method study of GP's use of electronic patient records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8 (12) 12
  • 22 Vehko T, Hyppönen H, Puttonen S. et al. Experienced time pressure and stress: electronic health records usability and information technology competence play a role. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019; 19 (01) 160
  • 23 Smelcer JB, Miller-Jacobs H, Kantrovich L. Usability of electronic medical records. J Usability Stud 2009; 4 (02) 70-84
  • 24 Zalis M, Harris M. Advanced search of the electronic medical record: augmenting safety and efficiency in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7 (08) 625-633
  • 25 Howe JL, Adams KT, Hettinger AZ, Ratwani RM. Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to patient harm. JAMA 2018; 319 (12) 1276-1278
  • 26 Ben Schafer J, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S. Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: Brusilovsky P, Kobsa A, Nejdl W. eds. The Adaptive Web. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007: 291-324
  • 27 Smith B, Linden G. Two decades of recommender systems at IEEE Internet Computing 2017; 21: 12-18
  • 28 Davidson J, Liebald B, Liu J, Nandy P, Van Vleet T. The YouTube video recommendation system. . Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Barcelona, Spain, September 26–30, 2010: 293-296
  • 29 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 (01) 19-32
  • 30 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
  • 31 Natarajan K, Stein D, Jain S, Elhadad N. An analysis of clinical queries in an electronic health record search utility. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (07) 515-522
  • 32 Bamnote GR, Agrawal SS. A review of clinical queries for electronic health record. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci 2012; 3 (03) 722-725
  • 33 Garcelon N, Neuraz A, Salomon R. et al. A clinician friendly data warehouse oriented toward narrative reports: Dr. Warehouse. J Biomed Inform 2018; 80: 52-63
  • 34 Biron P, Metzger MH, Pezet C, Sebban C, Barthuet E, Durand T. An information retrieval system for computerized patient records in the context of a daily hospital practice: the example of the Léon Bérard Cancer Center (France). Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (01) 191-205
  • 35 Duke JD, Morea J, Mamlin B. et al. Regenstrief Institute's Medical Gopher: a next-generation homegrown electronic medical record system. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (03) 170-179
  • 36 Duftschmid G, Rinner C, Kohler M, Huebner-Bloder G, Saboor S, Ammenwerth E. The EHR-ARCHE project: satisfying clinical information needs in a Shared Electronic Health Record system based on IHE XDS and Archetypes. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (12) 1195-1207
  • 37 Tawfik AA, Kochendorfer KM, Saparova D, Al Ghenaimi S, Moore JL. Using Semantic Search to Reduce Cognitive load in an Electronic Health Record. IEEE 13th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Applications and Services. Columbia, MO, June 13–15, 2011: 181-184
  • 38 Hasan SA, Zhu X, Liu J, Barra CM, Oliveira L, Farri O. Ontology-driven semantic search for Brazilian Portuguese clinical notes. Studi Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 1022
  • 39 Hanauer DA. EMERSE: The Electronic Medical Record Search Engine. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006; 2006: 941
  • 40 Kovacs MD, Mesterhazy J, Avrin D, Urbania T, Mongan J. Correlate: a PACS- and EHR-integrated tool leveraging natural language processing to provide automated clinical follow-up. Radiographics 2017; 37 (05) 1451-1460
  • 41 Moen H, Peltonen L, Suhonen H, Koivumäki M, Salakoski T, Salanterä S. Unsupervised phrase-level query rewriting for assisting search in clinical free text. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 264 (03) 1550-1551
  • 42 Hanauer DA, Mei Q, Law J, Khanna R, Zheng K. Supporting information retrieval from electronic health records: a report of University of Michigan's nine-year experience in developing and using the Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE). J Biomed Inform 2015; 55: 290-300
  • 43 Yang L, Mei Q, Zheng K, Hanauer DA. Query log analysis of an electronic health record search engine. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 915-924
  • 44 Zheng K, Mei Q, Hanauer DA. Collaborative search in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (03) 282-291
  • 45 Zheng K, Chen Y, Adler-Milstein J. et al. How do healthcare professionals personalize their software? A pilot exploration based on an electronic health records search engine. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 264: 1408-1412
  • 46 Ye C, Fabbri D. Extracting similar terms from multiple EMR-based semantic embeddings to support chart reviews. J Biomed Inform 2018; 83: 63-72
  • 47 Hultman GM, Marquard JL, Lindemann E, Arsoniadis E, Pakhomov S, Melton GB. Challenges and opportunities to improve the clinician experience reviewing electronic progress notes. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 446-453
  • 48 National Quality Forum. Submitting eCQMs for NQF Endorsement. Accessed March 12, 2021 at:
  • 49 Huang Z, Lu X, Duan H, Zhao C. Collaboration-based medical knowledge recommendation. Artif Intell Med 2012; 55 (01) 13-24
  • 50 Menon AK, Jiang X, Kim J, Vaidya J, Ohno-Machado L. Detecting inappropriate access to electronic health records using collaborative filtering. Mach Learn 2014; 95 (01) 87-101
  • 51 Shen F, Liu S, Wang Y, Wen A, Wang L, Liu H. Utilization of electronic medical records and biomedical literature to support the diagnosis of rare diseases using data fusion and collaborative filtering approaches. JMIR Med Inform 2018; 6 (04) e11301
  • 52 Klann JG, Szolovits P, Downs SM, Schadow G. Decision support from local data: creating adaptive order menus from past clinician behavior. J Biomed Inform 2014; 48: 84-93
  • 53 López-Nores M, Blanco-Fernández Y, Pazos-Arias JJ, Gil-Solla A. Property-based collaborative filtering for health-aware recommender systems. Expert Syst Appl 2012; 39 (08) 7451-7457
  • 54 Shen F, Liu S, Wang Y, Wang L, Afzal N, Liu H. Leveraging collaborative filtering to accelerate rare disease diagnosis. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018; 2017: 1554-1563
  • 55 Ren Z, Peng B, Schleyer TK, Ning X. Collaborative filtering methods for recommending search terms to clinicians. J Biomed Inform 2020
  • 56 Fan Z, Burgun E, Schleyer T, Ning X. Improving Information Retrieval from Electronic Health Records Using Dynamic and Multi-collaborative Filtering. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI). Xi'an, China, June 10–13, 2019
  • 57 Chiang J, Kumar A, Morales D. et al. Physician usage and acceptance of a machine learning recommender system for simulated clinical order entry. AMIA Jt Summits Trans Sci Proc 2020; 2020: 89-97
  • 58 Kumar A, Aikens RC, Hom J. et al. OrderRex clinical user testing: a randomized trial of recommender system decision support on simulated cases. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (12) 1850-1859