Enterprise Imaging 2022
Which Vendors Are Delivering in a Challenging Environment?

Agfa HealthCare & Merative (IBM) Have Improved Relationships; Ongoing Challenges Remain 

Customer satisfaction with most EI vendors has dropped over the last year. Agfa HealthCare and Merative (Merge)—who have some of the largest and most complex customers—are no exception, yet customers report the vendors have made efforts to smooth relationships amid a difficult year. Agfa customers appreciate the vendor’s increased executive involvement and engagement and their strong technology offerings. Some ongoing challenges with support expertise and timeliness have led to an overall score decrease. Merative customers (acquired from IBM) report a largely consistent support experience, and they speak highly of the vendor’s smoothly integrated product suite. Perception of slow development and some UV performance issues have driven score drops. Customer satisfaction with GE Healthcare, particularly regarding relationships, is highly variable and much higher among smaller organizations (<500 beds). Across organization sizes, satisfaction is higher with the vendor’s VNA than UV. Mach7 Technologies’ UV customers (whose use is primarily referential) remain largely satisfied; for VNA customers, support and upgrade challenges have led to a sharp decline in satisfaction.

Fujifilm Maintains Strong Satisfaction while Performance Drops for Most VNA Solutions

Fujifilm, Hyland, and Philips have widely adopted VNAs; their KLAS-validated UV adoption is more limited. In a year where most VNAs saw performance decreases, Fujifilm is providing a largely consistent customer experience. Fujifilm VNA customers of all sizes report the VNA is truly neutral in handling image types and appreciate Fujifilm’s engagement and strong support. Some feel the vendor’s road map is unclear. The limited number of interviewed UV customers are likewise largely satisfied. Hyland VNA customers—among the largest in this study—struggle with mixed support experiences and an unclear development road map. UV customers are notably smaller than VNA customers and are more satisfied. Philips’ EI customers (acquired from Carestream) tend to be fairly small, and all interviewed also use the acquired Carestream PACS. Customers appreciate the ability to store and view multiple image types. They note that Philips has strong resources but that support and implementation quality is inconsistent.

Fujifilm continues to deliver strong relationships and technology to their VNA customers, who appreciate the solution’s stability, flexibility, and ease of administration. Fujifilm offers strong support when issues arise. While the vendor provides some strategic engagement, a number of customers feel Fujifilm has an unclear road map and doesn’t actively try to understand customer goals. Philips’ VNA (Carestream) continues to be stable for smaller customers and meets their needs. However, inconsistent support, a number of poor implementations and upgrades, and slow development have resulted in an almost 9-point satisfaction drop. Satisfaction among Merative (Merge) customers has remained mostly steady. Customers find the solution easy to use and able to run in the background as needed. Support has been consistent, though with some reports of after-hours struggles. Some respondents feel development has been stagnant and are looking to Merative to turn things around. Agfa HealthCare customers say the vendor understands EI and offers a reliable, flexible, easy-to-use VNA. Respondents note Agfa has worked to stabilize relationships by improving processes and getting new hires up to speed. Support can be hit or miss since some on-the-ground resources still lack needed technical expertise.

The Hyland VNA supports many service lines and image types, though customers note it can be complex and difficult to administer. Respondents feel less connected to Hyland due to support difficulties, lagging development, and inadequate training. Mach7 Technologies’ VNA does what is needed but is sometimes harder to use than others in the market. In contrast to the vendor’s support for the UV, support for the VNA has declined. Customers cite issues with communication, timeliness, and access to individuals who can solve problems. A handful of customers have also experienced poor upgrades and feel development is lacking.

InsiteOne offers a cloud-based VNA (reacquired from NTT DATA in 2021). Satisfaction is split—all three interviewed small customers are satisfied and say the VNA works as needed. The three interviewed large customers are planning to leave, pointing to instability, lack of innovation, and poor proactivity from the vendor.

Customer satisfaction for GE Healthcare’s UV has sharply decreased in the last year. Inconsistent ongoing support and persistent nickel-and-diming are common across customers of all sizes. Respondents—especially larger organizations—report unkept promises regarding functionality and upgrades. Compared to most other UVs, GE Healthcare’s is more frequently used for diagnostic reading, which some organizations have successfully leveraged across multiple service lines.

Merative’s UV (Merge) facilitates integration and is seen as easy to use, and it is leveraged for both referential and diagnostic viewing. Support experiences are less consistent for UV customers than VNA customers—while some UV customers have seen improvements in the last year, others report decreased engagement. Slow perceived innovation, frequent nickel-and-diming, and performance issues have decreased satisfaction for a handful of customers. Agfa HealthCare UV customers note the vendor has improved in listening to and working with customers. The UV is seen as lightweight, easy to deploy, and flexible. Respondents use it primarily for referential viewing; KLAS has also validated some large organizations using it diagnostically in multiple service lines. Nickel-and-diming and difficulty connecting with support have detracted from the overall customer experience. Hyland customers generally find the UV to be easy to integrate and able to meet their needs for referential and diagnostic viewing; a number of respondents want more advanced functionality. Customers have difficulty connecting to helpful resources, experience bumpy implementations, and lack a clear road map for innovation—leading to a decrease in satisfaction over the last year.

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.