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



Related Series

 No Related Series

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
Global (Non-US) Virtual Visit Solutions 2021 Global (Non-US) Virtual Visit Solutions 2021
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Global (Non-US) Virtual Visit Solutions 2021
Unprecedented Demand Leads to Broad Options

author - Jeremy Goff
Jeremy Goff
author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
August 3, 2021 | Read Time: 7  minutes

Across the globe, COVID-19 forced provider organizations to explore new ways to safely meet with and care for patients. While regulations may shift in the post-COVID world, most countries are unlikely to roll them back completely, meaning telehealth is here to stay. For this study, KLAS interviewed 113 organizations outside the US about their current state with and future plans for virtual visit technology. 90% have adopted virtual visit technology, and in total, they mentioned using or considering the commercial video visit platforms, public telehealth platforms, or video conferencing platforms of 56 different vendors. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations rolled out technology in a matter of weeks, and most plan to reevaluate these solutions in the near future. What types of platforms and which vendors are being used and considered most often? Who is likely to lose customers and why?

Types of Platforms in This Report

video conferencing platforms iconVideo conferencing platforms
Core video visit technology, little additional healthcare-specific functionality

virtual care platforms non emr iconVirtual care platforms (non-EMR)
Healthcare-specific tools supporting virtual patient care; may include scheduling, billing, documentation, and on-demand physician consultation services

video conferencing platforms iconEMR-centric virtual care platforms
Virtual care platforms provided by EMR vendors

public telehealth platforms iconPublic telehealth platforms
Platforms made available by regional public health authorities

Microsoft Teams and Zoom (Both Cross-Industry Video Conferencing Platforms) Adopted Most Broadly amid Diverse Pool of Virtual Visit Solutions

vendors in use or considered for virtual visit technologyMicrosoft Teams and Zoom are the most broadly adopted solutions overall and were the solutions most commonly adopted in response to the pandemic. Many organizations already had some degree of familiarity with these platforms, facilitating quick rollout for outpatient/follow-up visits or for telespecialty consults. Microsoft Teams has a particularly strong presence in Europe and the Middle East, while Zoom has gained most of their non-US traction in Canada. Both platforms have recently made progress with functionality and integration and are likely to continue being adopted. Healthcare organizations also implemented other video conferencing solutions like Cisco and Google Meet, though to a lesser extent. Telehealth platforms made available through regional public health authorities—such as Attend Anywhere in the United Kingdom and Ontario Telemedicine Network (OTN) in Ontario, Canada—have been frequently deployed in the regions where they are offered. However, scalability or functionality challenges have led to some replacements. Teladoc Health received more mentions than any other non-EMR virtual care platform (they were brought up in three different regions). MEDITECH and Philips were the most frequently mentioned EMR-centric virtual care platforms. 39 other vendors were mentioned (as in use or considered) by just one interviewed organization apiece.

EMR-Centric Solutions Least Often Adopted but Most Likely to Be Retained

Of the types of virtual visit technologies measured in this report, EMR-centric virtual care platforms are least often used or considered. In lieu of waiting for EMR vendors to develop integrated offerings, most healthcare organizations opted to roll out already available video conferencing platforms, non-EMR virtual care platforms, or region-specific public platforms. However, many EMR vendors have since released virtual care platforms in response to the pandemic, and organizations are taking note (though often not yet adopting). Of the 10 MEDITECH EMR customers in this sample, 4 use the vendor’s virtual care platform, and 1 is considering it. Of the 16 Cerner Millennium customers, 2 considered but did not select Cerner’s virtual care platform, and 1 of the 9 Epic EMR customers considered but did not select Epic’s virtual care platform. A number of regional EMR vendors were mentioned once apiece: Adaptive TechSoft, ChipSoft, CompuGroup Medical, Dedalus, Maincare Solutions, Philips, and YASASII. Among interviewed organizations who are using an EMR-centric platform, 83% plan to stay. As organizations using any platform type reevaluate their long-term plans, they intend to give more consideration to EMR-centric platforms, particularly for the benefits of tighter integration.

current platform type and future plans



Attend Anywhere Struggles in the UK; Numerous Regional Solutions Preferred over Cross-Industry Solutions for Privacy Reasons

Attend Anywhere (called Near Me in Scotland) was made broadly available to public healthcare groups across England and Scotland. Performance issues and functionality gaps have led 50% of respondents who leveraged the platform to leave it or consider leaving. Microsoft Teams was the next most commonly cited solution in the United Kingdom & Ireland and was also implemented by several interviewed organizations elsewhere in Europe. Despite perceptions of the platform as capable, concerns about privacy (especially in Germany) have dampened interest. For similar reasons, considerations and use of Zoom are even lower. Most respondents in Europe opted for regional, healthcare-specific solutions, though no single local solution has standout mindshare across the 38 interviewed provider organizations in 11 countries.

europe virtual visit platform usage and consideration
vendors in use or considered for virtual visits in europe

Middle East

Cross-Industry Solutions Preferred; Among Healthcare-Specific Vendors, Okadoc & VSee Lead Diverse Group

In this report sample, Microsoft Teams and (to a lesser extent) Zoom are the top virtual visit solutions used in the Middle East, with Microsoft Teams benefiting significantly from an InterSystems partnership that enables EMR integration. Cisco also has a solid presence in the region. Additionally, a large number of healthcare-specific solutions were purchased or given consideration. This group includes regional offerings (like Okadoc), EMR-centric solutions (like YASASII), and global solutions (like VSee,, and Teladoc Health).

middle east virtual visit platform usage and consideration
vendors in use or considered for virtual visits middle east


OTN Issues Fuel Interest in Other Solutions

Ontario Telemedicine Network (OTN), Ontario’s provincial telemedicine platform, predates the pandemic and suffered from significant performance issues when usage ramped up because of COVID-19. As a result, regulations were relaxed to allow healthcare organizations to use other platforms for virtual visits. Many quickly opted for cross-industry solutions like Zoom, mainly for its low price point and the ability to set up EMR integration. Microsoft Teams was also widely considered, though less often adopted because of cost concerns or the perception it wouldn’t meet needs (e.g., integration).

canada virtual visit platform usage and consideration
vendors in use or considered for virtual visits canada

Other Canadian provinces also relied heavily on cross-industry solutions (including Cisco). MEDITECH Expanse customers often looked to MEDITECH’s integrated portal offering to meet their virtual visit needs. This adoption in Canada makes MEDITECH the most widely used or considered EMR-centric platform in this research sample.

Latin America & Asia/Oceania

Data on consideration and use of virtual visit solutions in Latin America, Asia, and Oceania is more limited. Interviewed organizations in Latin America were slower than those in other regions to adopt virtual visit technology overall, especially commercial solutions. Homegrown solutions along with Zoom and Philips were most frequently mentioned. KLAS spoke to a very limited number of healthcare organizations in Asia or Oceania. Zoom was the most frequently mentioned solution in this region. healthdirect, made available to public health entities in Australia, was also used by a couple of respondents.

About This Report

For this study, KLAS created a supplemental evaluation to gather both perception data and a limited amount of performance data on virtual visit solutions across the globe. In total, KLAS interviewed 126 individuals from 113 healthcare organizations across 33 countries. Data in this report was collected over the last 12 months.

KLAS Perception Data

This report draws mainly on perception data. This data is designed to help readers understand the key strategies provider organizations are deploying for virtual visits and which vendors are top of mind for healthcare organizations. It does this by examining which vendors are currently being used or considered. Other vendors not discussed in this report may offer similar capabilities, but healthcare organizations did not bring them up in conversations with KLAS.

For this report, interviewed organizations were asked about their current state with virtual visit solutions, their future plans, what vendors they are aware of in the space, what vendors they are considering for the future, and how they perceive those vendors and their offerings.

KLAS Performance Data

Interviewed organizations who currently use a solution for virtual visits were asked to rate the strength of that offering. While this performance data is shown at a global level, it is too limited to share for individual regions and is limited to the four most used and considered vendors: Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Attend Anywhere, and Ontario Telemedicine Network (OTN).

What Does “Limited Data” Mean?

For various reasons, sample sizes for some vendors may not reach KLAS’ required threshold of 15 unique respondents. When a vendor’s sample size 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 sample size, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.

respondents by region

Geographic Regions

The geographic regions used in this report are based—with some variation—on the United Nations’ geographic regions. Since this report excludes US data, the UN’s designation of Northern America has been replaced with the KLAS region of Canada. Feedback from organizations in overseas territories is discussed in the sections for their respective geographic regions (as defined by the UN) and is not included in analysis of the overarching country.

author - Amanda Wind Smith
Amanda Wind Smith
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.