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



Related Series

CDS Point-of-Care Reference 2022
Clinical Decision Support 2020
CDS 2016
Clinical Decision Support 2013
Clinical Decision Support 2011
Clinical Decision Support 2010

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
CDS Point of Care Reference 2021 CDS Point of Care Reference 2021
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

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

author - Joe VanDeGraaff
Joe VanDeGraaff
author - Jennifer Hickenlooper
Jennifer Hickenlooper
October 5, 2021 | Read Time: 6  minutes

Healthcare organizations typically use multiple clinical point-of-care reference systems to satisfy different users and address various use cases. But COVID-19 cost pressures, recent system updates, and the desire to standardize care have prompted organizations to reevaluate existing solutions and their CDS strategy. To help organizations navigate their options, this report seeks to illuminate the pros and cons of established clinical point-of-care solutions; it also provides an early look at the recent collaboration between EBSCO Information Services and IBM Watson Health.

Strong Physician Preference for Wolters Kluwer Juxtaposed with Concerns about Cost

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.

value vs likelihood to recommend

EBSCO Content Drives Outcomes; Elsevier’s Deep Content Difficult to Access at Point of Care

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.

product score and drives tangible outcomes

New-to-Market EBSCO & IBM Offering Has Early Appeal; Support Structure Needs Clarity

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.

ease of use

Elsevier & IBM Perceived as Slow with New Content Delivery; Wolters Kluwer Interface Seen as Outdated

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.

delivery of new technology and quality of implementation

Unresponsive Support a Concern for Some IBM Customers; EBSCO Stands Out for Strong Relationships

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).

relationship score

Solution Snapshots

ebsco information services snapshot
wolters kluwer snapshot
elsevier snapshot
ibm watson health snapshot
ebsco information services and ibm watson health snapshot

About This Report

Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use. For this report, interviews were conducted over the last 12 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.

customer experience pillars software

Sample Sizes

Sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization. Ratings from these individuals are aggregated in order to prevent any one organization’s feedback from disproportionately impacting a solution’s score. The table below shows the total number of unique organizations interviewed for each vendor or solution as well as the total number of individual respondents.

about this report

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.

author - Sarah Hanson
Sarah Hanson
author - Madison Moniz
Madison Moniz
author - Natalie Jamison
Project Manager
Natalie Jamison
 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.