CDS Point of Care Reference 2021
Cost Pressures & Competitive Options Top of Mind

Market share leader Wolters Kluwer is well loved by physicians. Many began using the UpToDate solution during medical school and strongly prefer its ease of use and relevant content. Though many physicians are satisfied and want to continue using the solution, healthcare organizations share Wolters Kluwer is by far the most expensive among their competitors, and some believe the vendor could price themselves out of the market. Those organizations leaving Wolters Kluwer say they can’t afford the product, and some prospective customers ultimately don’t choose Wolters Kluwer for this reason. IBM Watson Health customers report the search engine’s NLP features make the product easy to use. Pharmacists often find value in the IBM solution—the database contains a vast amount of both general and specific drug knowledge, including content around off-label drug use. Some customers are hesitant to recommend the vendor because of support issues (see below for details) and slow delivery of new content.

EBSCO Information Services customers often say the database has as much depth and specificity as competitors’ but at a fraction of the cost. A recent update has made the solution easier for customers to use and understand, and the content is delivered uniformly across different job roles (e.g., nurses, physicians), leading to consistent patient treatments. Many customers would choose EBSCO’s software over other reference tools if they were forced to consolidate, and some organizations have switched from Wolters Kluwer to make EBSCO their enterprise solution (though a few have reverted back to Wolters Kluwer due to lack of EBSCO adoption). Customers of Elsevier commend the vendor for their vast database, which includes images and videos. Respondents have mixed feedback on the search engine; for some, the limited search functionality restricts how much the solution can be used at the point of care, thus reducing customers’ overall perceptions of its value. Elsevier’s latest enhancement (not yet validated by KLAS) is intended to address this issue. Another factor impacting the perception of value is the high cost of the product.

EBSCO Information Services and IBM Watson Health recently collaborated to create the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson database. Early users are satisfied with the solution, which utilizes both EBSCO’s and IBM’s databases. The product is seen as easy to use, and 100% of early customers would buy the product again because of its vast content and simplified search functionality. Due to the product being owned and serviced by two vendors, customers are sometimes confused about which vendor to reach out to when problems arise. Respondents say their problems do eventually get resolved, regardless of which vendor they work with.

Elsevier and IBM Watson Health are seen as slower to deliver new content, with a few respondents mentioning the vendors’ databases are often a few months behind the latest content. Some Elsevier customers say updates can happen at inconvenient times and that the vendor should be more transparent and proactive when notifying customers about update times. Wolters Kluwer’s customers want a more up-to-date interface and more visibility into where the evidence-based content comes from and how reliable it is.

Most IBM Watson Health customers do not have issues with the product and view it as very capable. However, a few share that the support team is unresponsive and difficult to work with when there are issues. Some feel that the vendor’s large size siloes their support team and makes it difficult to find the appropriate people. Elsevier customers report a mixed experience when working with the vendor. Some see a lack of follow-through and mention the vendor is slow to resolve problems. Others have regular meetings with Elsevier and view them as very engaged. Respondents say Wolters Kluwer typically offers help when problems arise, but a handful say the vendor reaches out proactively only when it is time to renew a contract. EBSCO Information Services is seen as having a personable, collaborative, reliable, and responsive support team and stands out in their ability to smoothly deliver new, updated content in their database (see previous chart).

Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise designated as “limited data.” If the sample size is less than 6, no score is shown. Note that when a vendor has a low number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.