Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts



Related Series

CDS Point-of-Care Reference 2022
CDS Point of Care Reference 2021
Clinical Decision Support 2020
Clinical Decision Support 2013
Clinical Decision Support 2011
Clinical Decision Support 2010

Related Articles

 End chart zoom
CDS 2016 CDS 2016
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

CDS 2016
Providers Expect EMRs to Drive CDS Impact

author - Adam Cherrington
Adam Cherrington
author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
November 17, 2016 | Read Time: 4  minutes

KLAS intended this research to measure the outcomes being achieved with third-party CDS applications. However, many providers struggled to quantify their solution’s impact—a telling trend. As a result, this report highlights other insights gleaned from KLAS’ interviews regarding providers’ CDS solutions. Today, providers consider ease of adoption and clinical-reference quality when purchasing a system. What does the future hold for CDS? What role will EMRs play, and which third-party applications do providers report having success with?

providers expect emrs to drive cds impact
how are providers tackling cds

CDS Solutions Fall Short of Desired Impact; VBC Driving Energy

The most adopted and impactful CDS tools, e.g., disease reference solutions and order sets, are embedded in workflows. Disease reference solutions often work seamlessly in the background and won't require a lot of attention from providers in the future. Order set content is a much larger focus; today, providers are primarily the ones to update it since integration of third-party solutions is a challenge. Once considered the next big area of CDS, surveillance is still finding its way in healthcare. With the shift toward value-based care, many still see huge potential for enterprise-wide surveillance to be used with interdisciplinary care plans and conditions like sepsis, though neither use is prevalent today.

which cds applications are a core focus for your organization going forward

1. Providers Look to Cerner and Epic for Future CDS Initiatives; McKesson, MEDITECH Not Ready

Due to ongoing integration goals, providers are shifting their CDS strategies to focus on EMRs. They want more EMR-supplied tools from Epic, Cerner, and Allscripts for order sets, surveillance, infection control, and care plans, with Allscripts sites requesting deep customization. Some providers cite MEDITECH's approach as too reactive but are optimistic about forward-thinking tools within the 6.x platform for things like sepsis. McKesson customers are focused on getting their EMR working smoothly.

emr vendors role in future cds strategy

2. Order Sets: Zynx, Wolters Kluwer Diverge in Performance; EMR Integration Still Biggest Challenge

Having improved over the past two years, Zynx Health has emerged as the top-performing order set vendor. Customers benefit from strong service, better-set expectations (especially around integration challenges), and good overall follow-through. Wolters Kluwer generally meets needs, but performance has dropped recently due to unrealistic expectations around EMR integration. Overall, two-thirds of respondents are not using a third-party vendor, since updating order set content is laborious regardless of approach.

order sets year over year vendor performance

3. Surveillance: Wolters Kluwer Best of Pharmacy-Focused Vendors; Providers Looking to EMRs for Broader Impact

Wolters Kluwer leads the third-party surveillance vendors, coupling a stable product with attentive, accommodating service. Responsiveness to customer requests has declined since Premier acquired TheraDoc. 35% of customers plan to switch, many to their EMR vendor. The industry's shift to value is driving increased awareness of enterprise-wide surveillance, with providers looking to their EMRs as the answer. Today, many customers leverage Cerner's sepsis tool; Epic has a few live surveillance customers; several MEDITECH customers have noted broad-ranging surveillance applications within 6.x.

surveillance overall score and future plans

4. Care Plans: Lacking in Adoption and Impact

Though Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Zynx all offer evidence-based content that meets nurses' expectations, care plan adoption has not taken off. Care plans are a focus for 43% of organizations, who see interdisciplinary care plans as critical to success with value-based care. All vendors have generally good support, but each is cited for specific areas needing improvement: As with other vendors, Zynx's content can be labor intensive to tie into the EMR; Elsevier's usability and user interface need enhancement; and Wolters Kluwer lags in development and post-implementation follow-up.

care plan development and future

5. POC Reference: UpToDate the Clinician Preference, a Few Considering EBSCO as Replacement

Disease reference tools are the most widely adopted CDS applications. Despite frustrations over high cost, UpToDate's ubiquity and workflow integration are unique factors positively impacting outcomes. A few organizations are looking at long-time librarian favorite and overall score leader EBSCO as an alternative. They feel EBSCO's lower-cost DynaMed Plus content is on par with UpToDate, allowing them to switch. Elsevier's adoption lags overall, and their performance is lower due to inconsistent support.

Diagnostic support vendors perform well, yet lag in adoption. VisualDx offers strong tools for helping diagnose various skin conditions. Isabel offers broader diagnostics with an improved engine. It has not caught on with physicians, who tend to follow their own guidelines and workflow.

point of care reference tools

6. Infection Control: BD, Wolters Kluwer Strong Options; EMR Vendors Behind

BD provides a robust product and works closely with users to generate value. Wolters Kluwer's product is easy to use, and the vendor has recently improved their service. Premier's support has become increasingly inconsistent, ranging from amazing to unresponsive. 25% of respondents are planning to leave. Predicting an ROI for third-party solutions can be difficult, so providers are looking to their EMR. Cerner's solution is immature and has a minimal impact; providers are still optimistic about its development. Epic's platform is widely anticipated; adoption is limited to date. No MEDITECH or Allscripts customers mention an infection control solution from their EMR vendor.

infection control overall performance and future plans
author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
author - Robert Ellis
Project Manager
Robert Ellis
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2024 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.