Premium Reports
Global EMR Performance 2015

Global EMR Performance 2015
Global and Regional Performance Examined

Authored by: | Read Time: 4 minutes

Provider organizations around the globe continue to adopt EMR technology at a rapid rate, and many are considering both regional and multiregional EMR vendors. Multiregional vendors currently perform well in some regions, but none clearly outperform their competition everywhere. Which vendor(s) performs best in each region?

1. CERNER AND INTERSYSTEMS MOST SUCCESSFUL MULTIREGIONAL VENDORS

Cerner and InterSystems are the top-performing fully rated multiregional vendors. Cerner performs very well in Europe and the Middle East, though customers in Oceania have reported challenges stemming from their contract structures. InterSystems performs well in Asia/Oceania and the Middle East, though customers in Europe have reported support challenges caused by a lack of available local vendor resources. Epic and MEDITECH 6.0 perform highly in the Netherlands and Canada, respectively, but do not have significant customer bases in other regions.

MULTIREGIONAL VENDOR PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

Multiregional Vendor Performance Comparison

2. GOV'T CONTRACTS HINDER INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL SATISFACTION; DIRECT CONTRACTS BENEFIT CERNER UK PROIDERS

Providers using Cerner in Australia and InterSystems in Scotland want to leverage all available EMR functionality but are often unable to due to limiting contracts. Additionally, Allscripts’ rollout in Australia has been slow. As proof that providers can be more successful when working directly with vendors, UK providers report deeper product adoption, better support, and improved Cerner performance attributed to direct contracts post NPfIT. Until vendors are more prescriptive in government contracts, providers likely won’t fully benefit from what these platforms offer. It is unknown yet how Epic’s contract with Denmark will unfold.

3. EPIC STRONG IN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS

KLAS interviewed all seven of Epic’s live clients outside the U.S., spanning four countries. These larger organizations report strong implementation methodologies, functionality, and support, leading to deep organization-wide adoption. Early CSC Lorenzo adopters also report strong vendor engagement and optimism around future development, though functionality like ePrescribing and mobile applications is missing today. Most vendors (except InterSystems) have seen a slight decline in performance among larger customers; Allscripts and Philips have the biggest disparities. Larger Allscripts customers report implementation challenges and needing more functionality. Philips has struggled to guide larger customers through the transition to their new platform.

LARGE-ORGANIZATION PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

Large-Organization Performance Comparison

4. EUROPE: CERNER MOST SUSTAINED SUCCESS

Cerner has had the most widespread success in Europe, performing strongly across a number of countries. Clients transitioning out of NPfIT report a much improved product and support experience. Allscripts’ (mostly UK), CSC Lorenzo’s (UK), and Epic’s (mostly Netherlands) limited customer bases report good performance thus far. Allscripts customers note positive reception from clinicians and strong interfaces. CSC Lorenzo customers report less functionality and a clickheavy interface but a low price point and optimism around ongoing development for mobile solutions and ePrescribing. Epic customers report deep usage of a robust product with strong clinician uptake. InterSystems has seen a rapid influx of new customers, causing European clients to report scant resources for implementation, training, optimization, and support.

EUROPEAN PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

European Performance Ccomparison

5. CANADA: IMPROVEMENTS DRIVE MEDITECH SUCCESS

Newer MEDITECH 6.0 customers report success with recent conversions from legacy platforms. Noted substantial improvements include a smoother conversion process, a more reliable product, and better vendor guidance. Though 6.0’s price point is higher than most legacy MEDITECH customers are used to, MEDITECH is rated highest for value, with few additional costs. Canadian clients for most vendors report receiving better vendor involvement in recent years, though Allscripts customers report a more reactive support approach.

SELECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Select Performance Indicators

6. ASIA/OCEANIA: GOV'T CONTRACTS HAMPER CERNER PERFORMANCE

Statewide contracts in Australia have caused difficulties for Allscripts and Cerner clients. Deployed in part in over 100 hospitals, Cerner has many customers clamoring for the functionality that is enjoyed by directly contracted Cerner customers outside their regions. Additionally, customers would like more training and system optimization resources, which are limited by statewide contracts. Allscripts customers are pleased with increased executive attention, though the local, lowerlevel support has been poor, and the product still lacks localized functionality. Early feedback on InterSystems has been mostly positive. These customers (mostly private healthcare groups) praise InterSystems’ lower-cost functionality but report that the communication and support could improve.

REGIONAL AVERAGE COMPARISON & SELECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Regional Average Comparison
Select performance indicators

7. MIDDLE EAST: INTERSYSTEMS AND CERNER STRONG

Of the multiregional EMR vendors in the Middle East, Cerner and InterSystems have the most customers, though Epic, MEDITECH, and QuadraMed each have one or two live customers. Cerner’s tend to be larger, multihospital organizations, while InterSystems’ are smaller, often standalone hospitals. Customers appreciate Cerner’s richer functionality; it comes with add-on costs. InterSystems’ customers like their rapid implementations that have few extra costs. Customers say both vendors meet basic support needs but need more local staff, especially during implementations.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

Overall performance comparison

8. LATIN AMERICA: STRONG FUNCTIONALITY, GROWING PAINS FOR MV SISTEMAS

Philips Tasy and MV Sistemas perform well within their large customer bases in Brazil, though MV Sistemas’ ease of use and response time set the product apart. MV Sistemas’ support resources (especially for larger clients) are slow, reactive, and often unhelpful due to rapid growth. Philips’ customers are optimistic that the new web-based platform will resolve current usability issues, though infrastructure upgrade costs and limited available Philips resources are concerns. Agfa and InterSystems have clients in Brazil but are given little consideration in new EMR decisions.

SELECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Select Performance Indicators

Want to see full details?

 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. © 2018 KLAS Enterprises, 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.