KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms 2022
Provider Insights on a Rapidly Evolving Market (Report 2 of 2)
Author
Aaron Gleave
Author
Alex McIntosh
Virtual care has been a roller coaster for healthcare organizations in the last few years—from minimal uptake in the face of reimbursement barriers, to the COVID-19 rush in demand and availability, to hastily implemented and developed IT solutions, to a recent return to more-standard care delivery, and now the re-examination of go-forward strategies. This report shares how EMR-centric virtual care platforms perform today and what provider organizations have planned for the future.
eClinicalWorks declined to participate in this study, and KLAS was unable to independently validate enough customers using eClinicalWorks’ virtual care platform to measure them in this report.
The Current State of the Market
Epic and NextGen See Broadest Adoption across Specialties; Post-Pandemic, Virtual Behavioral Health Will Continue Strong
Virtual care platforms from both Epic and NextGen Healthcare have been validated in use across all specialties measured in this study. Both platforms are noted for supporting customers’ specialty-specific workflow needs and enabling providers to effectively care for patients throughout the pandemic. athenahealth has also seen broad adoption by many specialties. Only two specialties were validated for all vendors: family medicine and behavioral health. Provider organizations feel virtual care solutions are particularly helpful for behavioral health, allowing for effective care delivery and making it easier for patients to access care. This is also far and away the most common specialty for which organizations plan to continue using their virtual care solution.
Epic, Elation Health & Kareo Deliver Strong Experience for Patients, Leading to Improved Outcomes
Of the fully rated solutions, Epic’s virtual care offering receives the highest overall ratings. Customers report improvements in patient usability now that they can access Epic Telehealth through a web browser rather than a dedicated app, making patients more willing to engage with providers through the solution. Multiple customers also remark on benefits they achieve from what they describe as the platform’s “deep integration”; respondents say having a unified system that allows patients to schedule appointments, access records, and see their doctor virtually gives patients more power and confidence in the technology, and this leads to higher adoption. Provider organizations say this increased adoption has allowed them to help patients who wouldn’t otherwise have received needed care. athenahealth customers are also quite satisfied overall. Respondents praise the tight integration between the core clinical platform and the internally developed virtual care solution, which athena was able to deliver soon after the start of the pandemic. Heavy internet bandwidth requirements drive some dissatisfaction around the patient experience.
Organizations using Elation Health (limited data) are very satisfied with their vendor and give the solution high marks for improving patient outcomes. Elation customers are typically smaller ambulatory organizations; among interviewed customers, the average number of physicians per organization is 2. Customers report that Elation’s product allows them to see patients quickly and meet their needs, including patients who would otherwise be unable to seek care due to health, distance, or economic factors. Many respondents say the solution offers all the functionality they need to run their practices effectively. The limited data from Kareo customers (also small practices, with an average practice size of 5 physicians) suggests the simplicity of the system and its processes on the patient side improves the patient experience. Overall satisfaction is lower due to provider-usability challenges.
Bottom Lines on Virtual Care Solutions
*Limited data
Vendors ordered alphabetically
athenahealth
Viewed by customers as a strong, technology-centered platform. Respondents highly optimistic about the solution’s future. Some organizations cite heavy bandwidth requirements as a barrier for rural or poorer areas and are considering other options.
Cerner*
Fully integrated telehealth solution for Cerner EMR clients. Respondents dislike the need for patients to have a portal login as it creates unnecessary complications for patients and negatively impacts the patient experience.
Elation Health*
Very strong solution in small practices. Customers say use of the technology comes at no additional cost. Almost no complaints from interviewed clients.
Epic
Strong solution that provider organizations feel is improving. Significant improvement in patient experience as a result of new web-based functionality (patients no longer required to download an app). Organizations still want Epic to allow patients without a MyChart login to use the solution.
Greenway Health*
Integrated solution that provides a smooth workflow for office staff and for clinicians as they visit with patients. Missing some functionality that providers would like. Respondents report insufficient training material from the vendor.
Kareo*
Mainly used by small practices. Despite a rocky rollout, many respondents are still hopeful the product can improve to meet their needs. Customers often mention workflow challenges and functionality issues for patients using Apple devices.
NextGen Healthcare
Flexible solution that can be adapted to many specialty-specific needs and workflows. Nearly all interviewed customers plan to keep the solution long term. Misses in proactive service and functionality cause some dissatisfaction.
Where the Industry Is Going
Functionality Problems Driving Organizations to Third-Party Solutions
While collecting performance insights on EMR-centric virtual care solutions, KLAS repeatedly spoke to organizations (across vendor-provided client lists) who have made the decision to move away from their EMR vendor in favor of a third party better able to meet their needs. This is a departure from the trend typically observed in HIT of organizations consolidating as much as possible under one vendor. Functionality and patient usability concerns are the primary drivers when organizations decide to switch. To ensure patients can consistently access care, especially on mobile devices, many respondents seek better audio and video quality and a lower bandwidth burden. Customers of several vendors say they were looking for a solution that could serve rural and underprivileged populations that have less access to high-speed technology; these organizations found third-party solutions worked better to meet those needs, improving the patient experience at a lower overall price point for provider organizations. Doxy.me, VidyoHealth, and Zoom were mentioned often as replacements for EMR-based solutions (VidyoHealth was mentioned solely by Epic customers). These solutions also meet other functionality needs (e.g., remote patient monitoring, chat functions, direct-to-consumer capabilities through an agnostic portal) that EMR-centric solutions are lacking.
With Improvement, EMR Vendors Could Make a Comeback
While many interviewed organizations have moved away from their EMR vendor for virtual care, they may not stay away in the long run. More than two-thirds say they will consider their EMR vendor for virtual health in the future. These organizations are looking for functionality improvements that will bring their EMR-based solutions on par with third-party solutions. Many provider organizations say their EMR vendor’s capabilities are not yet mature enough to meet their needs, particularly during the initial rush caused by the pandemic, when customers needed to quickly implement a virtual care solution. However, provider organizations still place high value on the possibility of a fully integrated platform that covers as many of their technology needs as possible, including virtual care.
About This Report
Data for this report comes from two sources: (1) KLAS performance data, collected through a standard evaluation and a supplemental evaluation, and (2) KLAS perception data, collected through a separate supplemental evaluation.
KLAS Performance Data
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.
To supplement the customer satisfaction data gathered with the standard evaluation, KLAS also created a performance-focused supplemental evaluation to delve deeper into several questions specific to the EMR-centric virtual care platforms market. This evaluation asked about topics such as solution setup time, functionality gaps, effects on patient outcomes and patient satisfaction, and what the experience is like for patients, clinical staff, and office staff.
Sample Sizes
Unless otherwise noted, 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. 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.
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.
KLAS Perception Data
While collecting performance insights on EMR-centric virtual care solutions, KLAS repeatedly came across organizations who had made the decision to move away from their EMR vendor in favor of a third party better able to meet their needs. To capture the motivations and perspectives of these organizations, KLAS created a perception-focused supplemental evaluation to gather information on broad market trends in the virtual care market. This evaluation was administered as KLAS organically came across relevant organizations and was not targeted at collecting information regarding specific vendors or their performance. This evaluation asked respondents what functionality (if any) they felt was missing in their EMR vendor’s virtual care solution, the reasons they switched to a third party, and the likelihood they would stay with the third party long term versus switching back to their EMR vendor.
Writer
Amanda Wind
Designer
Jessica Bonnett
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
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. © 2025 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.