Cardiology 2017
Structured Reporting Challenges

1. Cath Structured Reporting—Change Healthcare (McKesson) and Merge Most Adopted; Epic Customers Frustrated with Limited Functionality

Due to the complex, invasive nature of cath procedures, physician workflows for cath structured reporting have been a persistent source of frustration. Across healthcare organizations, adoption of structured reporting is low for cath compared to other cardiology areas. Customization and training are two factors that can impact adoption of cath structured reporting. Change Healthcare (McKesson) and Merge customers report the highest adoption, while also looking for workflow improvements. Change Healthcare (McKesson) customers note that the vendor’s physician training and willingness to customize the solution are helpful. However, physician workflows can still be cumbersome. Merge customers like the technology and feel the workflows are improving; they have some concerns regarding the manual entry required for cath templates. Feedback from other vendors’ customers is limited but is consistent regarding the need for better automation to pull discrete data into cath templates. The Epic system provides very limited functionality for cath templates, and customers feel what success they have achieved has been due mostly to their own efforts. Use of cath structured reporting has been validated among a limited sample of INFINITT users; they report efficient physician workflows.

2. Support—Merge and INFINITT More Helpful with Customization

Structured reporting is a complex process, and many vendors struggle to provide frontline support with the knowledge level needed to help customers succeed with structured reporting. Merge and INFINITT customers report having access to responsive personnel who can help them adjust the structured reporting. Merge customers have reported some transition challenges following the acquisition by IBM. Philips customers also receive responsive support but must jump through hoops to access the right expertise. The quality of Siemens’ support varies from customer to customer, and improvements to the structured reporting take longer than hoped. Epic customers feel Epic is a partner but acknowledge that Epic has struggled to bring strong cardiology expertise to structured reporting. Change Healthcare (McKesson) customers also note gaps in their vendor’s knowledge base. Both Fujifilm and LUMEDX customers report problems getting to the people with expertise to make changes. This is a recent development for LUMEDX customers, who previously received more responsive support.

3. Hemodynamics—Merge Interfacing Enables Flow of Data; Lack of Development from GE Healthcare and Philips a Pain Point

Tight integration between the hemodynamics and cardiology solutions is key to ensuring that the right data gets into the structured reporting and that the physician workflow is as smooth as possible. The existence of this strong integration is a major factor in high satisfaction among Merge’s hemodynamics customers. Customers also report that Merge has continued to develop more customizable and automated reports. GE Healthcare and Philips both offer stable, longstanding hemodynamics solutions; however, lack of development has been a recurring concern for customers looking for improved flexibility. The Change Healthcare (McKesson) hemodynamics product offers robust functionality and is continually enhanced; a few users do not feel the integration is seamless.