Home chevron icon Ambulatory & Post Acute Care chevron icon Physician Practice Solutions chevron icon Ambulatory EMR
2014 Best In KLAS Ambulatory EMR 11-75 Physicians

2014 Best in KLAS Ambulatory EMR (11-75 Physicians)

Who is Best in KLAS?



How do they score? In five key performance categories

Market Segment Average   Epic


Sales & Contracting

Implementation & Training

Functionality & Upgrades

Service & Support

General

50
100

Solutions Not Ranked

Limited Data Products

Score

e-MDs Chart*

72.9

LSS MPM*

66.6

Cerner PowerChart Ambulatory*

71.1

Component [C], Not Primary [NP], Regional [R] or Limited Market Share [MS]

GE Healthcare Centricity EMR* [NP]*

73.1

Greenway Intergy EHR [NP]*

63.9

*Does not meet minimum KLAS Konfidence level.

Trend does not include the Best KLAS score

See the latest BEST IN KLAS 2018

2022 Best in KLAS Awards - Global Software
2022 GLOBAL
2022 Best in KLAS Awards - Software and Professional Services
2022 BEST IN KLAS

How do Ambulatory EMR solutions compare?


How do the top three solutions trend?


Epic-Epic EpicCare Ambulatory EMR
Nextech-SRSsoft EHR
athenahealth-athenahealth athenaClinicals

Past Ambulatory EMR Awards

2023
Ambulatory EMR 2023 11-75 Physicians | Independent 11-75 Physicians | Independent
Ambulatory EMR 2023 Health System Owned Health System Owned
Ambulatory EMR 2023 Over 75 Physicians | Independent Over 75 Physicians | Independent
2022
Ambulatory EMR 2022 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2022 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2021
Ambulatory EMR 2021 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2021 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2020
Ambulatory EMR 2020 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2020 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2019
Ambulatory EMR 2019 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2019 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2018
Ambulatory EMR 2018 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2018 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2017
Ambulatory EMR 2017 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2017 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2015/2016
Ambulatory EMR 2016 1-10 Physicians 1-10 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2016 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2016 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2014
Ambulatory EMR 2014 1-10 Physicians 1-10 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2014 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2014 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2013
Ambulatory EMR 2013 1-10 Physicians 1-10 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2013 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2013 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2012
Ambulatory EMR 2012 1-10 Physicians 1-10 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2012 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2012 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2011
Ambulatory EMR 2011 1-10 Physicians 1-10 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2011 11-75 Physicians 11-75 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2011 Over 75 Physicians Over 75 Physicians
2010
Ambulatory EMR 1 Physician 1 Physician
Ambulatory EMR 2-5 Physicians 2-5 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 26-100 Physicians 26-100 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR Over 100 Physicians Over 100 Physicians
2009
Ambulatory EMR 1 Physician 1 Physician
Ambulatory EMR 2-5 Physicians 2-5 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 26-100 Physicians 26-100 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR Over 100 Physicians Over 100 Physicians
2008
Ambulatory EMR 1 Physician 1 Physician
Ambulatory EMR 2-5 Physicians 2-5 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 26-100 Physicians 26-100 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR Over 100 Physicians Over 100 Physicians
2007
Ambulatory EMR (1-5 Physicians) 2007 Ambulatory EMR (1-5 Physicians)
Ambulatory EMR 2007 26-100 Physicians 26-100 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2007 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
2006
Ambulatory EMR 2006 1-5 Physicians 1-5 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2006 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2006 Over 25 Physicians Over 25 Physicians
2005
Ambulatory EMR 2005 1-5 Physicians 1-5 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2005 6-25 Physicians 6-25 Physicians
Ambulatory EMR 2005 Over 25 Physicians Over 25 Physicians
Related ReportsView All Reports
Performance
KLAS article icon
Midsize/Large Ambulatory EMR 2022
05 July 22    |   Aaron Gleave and Alex McIntosh
Technology needs are constantly evolving in healthcare, yet vendor development efforts may not always align with provider organizations’ top priorities. To better understand what these priorities are in midsize and large ambulatory practices (11+ physicians), KLAS interviewed over 500 respondents from such organizations regarding the areas most in need of improvement from their EMR vendor.
Performance
KLAS article icon
EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms 2022
14 June 22    |   Aaron Gleave and Alex McIntosh
Virtual care has been a roller coaster for healthcare organizations in the last few years—from minimal uptake in the face of reimbursement barriers, to the COVID-19 rush in demand and availability, to hastily implemented and developed IT solutions, to a recent return to more-standard care delivery, and now the re-examination of go-forward strategies. This report shares how EMR-centric virtual care platforms perform today and what provider organizations have planned for the future.
Performance
KLAS article icon
Comprehensive Ambulatory Platforms 2021
16 December 21    |   Aaron Gleave and Alex McIntosh
Looking to improve integration and reduce vendor complexity, ambulatory organizations have recently accelerated efforts to consolidate their technology solutions. However, their EMR vendor’s portfolio may have gaps or may not stack up in certain areas to the specialized functionality of best-of-breed solutions. To help organizations determine whether a consolidated IT approach is best for them, KLAS conducted in-depth interviews with ambulatory organizations that have broadly and deeply adopted their EMR vendor’s technology portfolio. These customers’ feedback reveals what technology is adopted today, where gaps still exist, and what benefits and potential pitfalls other organizations may want to consider as they move toward consolidation. Vendors that offer a wide range of IT solutions for ambulatory practices were invited to submit a list of the organizations that have most broadly and deeply adopted their ambulatory portfolios (eClinicalWorks elected not to participate and MEDITECH did not have enough standalone ambulatory customers to qualify). Five “deep adopters” were interviewed for each participating vendor. Their insights are intended to help other organizations understand the current best-case scenario with a comprehensive ambulatory platform.
Performance
KLAS article icon
EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms 2021
24 June 21    |   Aaron Gleave and Alex McIntosh
Though many ambulatory and acute care EMR vendors already had plans pre-COVID to create, acquire, or expand virtual care capabilities, the emergence of the pandemic obviously necessitated an accelerated development pace. Based 100% on vendor-provided information (not yet validated by KLAS), this report explores what virtual care capabilities are available from EMR vendors and how these solutions are being deployed. Many EMR vendors were invited to participate in this report; those who responded are included in the charts below. Part two of this report (scheduled for release later in 2021) will explore the actual customer experience for as many of these solutions as possible, regardless of vendor participation. Note: For information on the broader telehealth ecosystem (including telehealth technology from non-EMR vendors), see KLAS’ recent  Telehealth Ecosystem 2021 report .
Flash Insights
KLAS article icon
Information Blocking
12 May 21    |   Coray Tate and Paul Warburton
The final rule from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) regarding the 21st Century Cures Act went into effect April 5, 2021, and includes new regulations regarding interoperability and information blocking. Just before the rule’s start date, KLAS reached out to provider organizations to understand what they have done to prepare, what the biggest challenges were, and how they think the changes will impact interoperability. Feedback from 42 respondents is explored below.
Best in KLAS
KLAS article icon
2021 Best in KLAS Awards - Software and Professional Services
02 February 21    |   Mark Allphin and Sam Eaquinto
The Best in KLAS report recognizes software and services companies who excel in helping healthcare professionals improve patient care. All rankings are a direct result of the feedback of thousands of providers over the last year. A Best in KLAS award signifies to the healthcare IT industry the commitment and partnership that the top vendors should provide. Read the report to see the top-rated medical software and services for 2021. Watch sessions from our first-ever virtual Best In KLAS Award Show to hear from the winning vendors in each segment. View Awards Show Recordings
Performance
KLAS article icon
Interoperability 2020—Post-Acute and Behavioral Health
12 November 20    |   Coray Tate and Jonathan Christensen
Since it was established in November 2018, the CommonWell-Carequality connection has been utilized mostly by acute and ambulatory care organizations. More recently, post–acute care (home health, hospice, long-term care) and behavioral health organizations have started to connect to the national networks; the large majority of these early adopters find the connection valuable. This report—KLAS’ first on interoperability in the post–acute care and behavioral health markets—examines which vendors are connected today and the level of usability achieved by their most advanced customers.
Performance
KLAS article icon
EpicCare Ambulatory 2020—Community Connect
02 April 20    |   Aaron Gleave and Alex McIntosh
Because of Epic’s presence in the healthcare market and their record of strong performance, many standalone (i.e., not associated with a hospital) midsize to large ambulatory organizations have chosen or are seriously considering Epic’s platform. These organizations have two options: contract directly with Epic for an independent instance of the solution, or contract with a local hospital/IDN under the Community Connect model. This research—KLAS’ first look at the differences between these approaches on the ambulatory side—includes two main findings from standalone ambulatory organizations: (1) With direct contracting, Epic delivers a highly satisfactory experience for midsize to large ambulatory organizations. (2) Those on Community Connect, who rely on their host organization for support, tend to be considerably less satisfied and fault Epic for allowing host organizations to deliver an experience below Epic’s usual standard.

Konfidence

Konfidence level
Konfidence Level Description
Products must have at least 30 live organizations participating for software and at least 15 live organizations for professional services. Exception to this is Transcription Services (30).
Products must have at least 20 live organizations participating for software and at least 10 live organizations for professional services. Exception to this is Transcription Services (20).
Products must have at least 15 live organizations participating for software and at least 6 live organizations for professional services. Exception to this is Transcription Services
-
The Konfidence level on this product rating is low. These results are for early trend detection. As more performance data is received, the result is likely to have a wide variance.
We use cookies! We use essential and basic aggregated, depersonalized Google Analytics cookies to provide the type of content which our visitors are most interested in.  Cookie Policy    
​