Clinical Surveillance 2018
Alerts Are Leading to Better Outcomes

Better Patient Interventions with Cerner, Epic, Stanson Health, and Bernoulli

Regardless of vendor, nearly all respondents feel their solution contributes to better patient interventions. Though Epic’s alerts are seen as the most difficult to make operational, more than 70% of interviewed Epic customers feel the alerts are very helpful in driving patient interventions across many use cases and report shorter patient stays, reduced readmissions, and fewer adverse events. Though not to the same extent as Epic customers, Cerner customers are also nearly unanimous in saying that the solution drives interventions, citing its ability to identify patients at risk for sepsis at the time when clinical intervention would be most effective. Though their use is largely limited to ventilator alerts, all within the small sample of Bernoulli customers feel their solution has a positive effect on patients by sending caregivers alerts produced by ventilators.

Cerner and Epic Both Broadly Adopted, but Differences in Effectiveness Exist

Cerner and Epic are the only vendors that KLAS validated as having extensive adoption of their clinical surveillance capabilities. However, in most metrics, customers of these two vendors are less satisfied than customers of the other charted vendors in this report. Cerner customers feel the system needs to fit better within physician workflows, the reporting is underdeveloped, and the solution has fewer customization options than needed; these functionality misses often contribute to a feeling that the tool produces fewer tangible outcomes than desired.

Providers Use Clinical Surveillance Technology Sparingly

Sepsis is, by far, the most common and most developed use case for clinical surveillance solutions today. Many interviewed organizations are still in the process of setting up, testing, and figuring out how to use their solution for a variety of other use cases.