Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Report    Zoom in charts



Related Series

International Summit 2022 White Paper

 End chart zoom
Global Summit 2023 Global Summit 2023
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Global Summit 2023

author - Everton Santos
Everton Santos
author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
October 3, 2023 | Read Time: 19  minutes

In June 2023, KLAS hosted our annual global summit in the Algarve, Portugal, attended by 119 participants, including 58 healthcare representatives from 21 countries and 61 healthcare IT (HIT) vendor and consultant attendees. Over the two-day conference, healthcare leaders discussed the industry’s top challenges and areas of growth and innovation. This overview summarizes summit discussions specifically related to (1) the gaps between healthcare organizations, regulators, and policymakers and (2) the advancement of the cloud in healthcare.

to see the full dataset.

If you don't have a login, getting started is easy.

Provider Organizations
Fill out our registration form to verify your organization.
HIT Companies
Contact a KLAS representative for plans and pricing.

Pre-Summit Survey

To supplement the group discussions during the summit, KLAS administered a pre-summit survey on current challenges and gaps in healthcare policy and regulations. Of the 119 attendees, 72 (about 61%) responded, including healthcare organizations from 16 countries. Below are two main takeaways.

survey respondents by respondent type
areas where policy needs additional refinement clarification
most natable gaps between policymakers, regulators, provider organizations, and vendors

Healthcare Organizations & HIT Vendors Identify Poor Understanding of Healthcare Practices as Biggest Gap for Policymakers

All parties in healthcare face challenges related to policy and regulation, many of which can be attributed to (1) a lack of vision; (2) misalignment between policymakers, regulators, healthcare organizations, and vendors; or (3) a lack of engagement and collaboration. Many healthcare organizations and vendors feel policymakers and regulators are too prescriptive in mandating how care is provided without fully realizing the impact on caregiver workflows or the resource constraints organizations face. Funding frequently lags behind policy, leaving organizations unable to make necessary regulatory changes. Additionally, they feel policymakers misunderstand the available technology and whether it will actually produce the desired outcomes. For regulations to be effective, policymakers need to consider feedback from clinical leaders, administrators, and IT staff; focus more on desired outcomes than on requiring specific implementation methods (a common critique of the US’ meaningful use policy); and craft regulatory policies with specific, measurable outcomes.

quote“The realities, pressures, and workflows of daily clinical practice are not well understood by policymakers, regulatory bodies, and vendors. As a result, the vendor products as well as regulatory and policy environment have the potential to create barriers and inefficiencies to providers and patients in the course of care.” —CMIO

The Healthcare Industry Needs More Clarification on Data Sharing

Participants of all types report data sharing as the area most in need of additional policy refinement or clarification. Standards for data sharing exist, but confusion remains as to how sharing can and should occur both within and across countries (such as within the EU), and many healthcare organizations advocate for standards that create more universal understanding. Vendors hope that policymakers can develop more global standards while avoiding the high costs of country-specific development or overadaptation of these standards, which could stifle innovation. To accomplish this, many suggest that policymakers should first look to countries that have successfully implemented measures and then leverage existing technology and practices to determine realistic and effective global policies.

Respondents would also like more clarification when it comes to policies regarding the cloud and security—two topics that are inextricably connected (several of the requested cloud policies have to do with security). Many challenges in these areas are caused by varying interpretation of rules between different geographic regions or individual organizations, leading to inconsistent application and adherence by vendors and healthcare organizations. Clarification on existing data-sharing rules is limited, even as the industry is preparing for further changes, such as the forthcoming European Health Data Space.

Summit Discussions

During the summit, attendees formed small groups to discuss two main topics as they pertain to healthcare and HIT: (1) policy and regulations and (2) the cloud. The following are the takeaways from those discussions.

Policy and Regulation: Breaking Down Barriers between Policymakers, Regulators, Healthcare Organizations & Vendors

The Industry Should Encourage Cross-Organization and -Country Collaboration to Stay Aligned on Emerging Topics & Events

With many advances and changes being made in areas such as interoperability, the cloud, AI, and security, attendees expressed the desire to shift from a mentality of “knowledge is power” to “sharing is power.” They note that too much is happening in silos without sufficient communication—both within organizations as well as across the industry. Attendees, mostly from provider organizations, want more collaborative engagements and sharing spaces with less focus on sales. Organizations such as CHIME, HIMSS, and KLAS Research should work to facilitate learning and discussion around standards and best practices. To break down silos, it is essential to share content, learnings, and published resources from conferences with those unable to participate. The shared perspectives and resources should be elevated to the government level (including policymakers and regulators) and across countries and regions. techUK is a good example of a conference that brings together healthcare organizations and suppliers to talk about regulations, giving voice to both public- and private-sector organizations and vendors. Policies should emphasize centralized, cross-country opportunities for education and collaboration. Sweden and Norway exemplify good cross-country collaboration through their model of a single patient identifier, which is established to facilitate easier care collaboration across borders.

For policymakers & regulators:

While politics are necessary to make improvements in HIT, politics can also lead to difficult roadblocks. Politicians and policymakers tend to shift with the election cycles, so regulators can enable the longer-term evolution of healthcare by creating strategies that prioritize initiatives for longer than a single election cycle. Policymakers often focus on innovation, and while that is important, sometimes basic but necessary policies (like data governance) are left overlooked and underfunded, making it difficult for healthcare organizations to receive needed returns. One such area is interoperability; many want more emphasis on the adoption of global interoperability standards. There are a number of existing standards (e.g., HL7, FHIR, DICOM) that can and should be leveraged when considering global policies for interoperability.

In all areas, regulators should (1) look to adopt global standards rather than creating their own and (2) ensure adherence to those standards. The ultimate goal should be creating a health data ecosystem that empowers patients to own their data and allows for portability (both within a country and with other countries). As overregulation can impede both care and competition, regulators should create incentives to move both vendors and provider organizations toward better care. Ideally, regulators should convene stakeholders (clinicians, IT staff, and administrators) to discuss what is needed and desired. The constructed framework for solving challenges should be clear so that innovation is not stifled. Rather than solely focusing on costs, all involved should focus on facilitating better information sharing between primary care organizations, hospitals, and other care settings.

Provider Organizations, Vendors & Consultants Must Align with Policymakers by Prioritizing Goal of Improving Patient Care

Misalignment can be a result of different perspectives among groups. In healthcare organizations, IT staff may view technology as a product, while clinicians see it as a method to realize outcomes. The staff in informatics positions can help to align these two perspectives, working as a bridge during large-scale transformation projects. Both provider organizations and vendors need to amplify the perspective of nurses and physicians in informatics roles and further empower them to shape organizational, design, and road-map decisions while also helping to develop a multidisciplinary process rather than a siloed workflow. As healthcare organizations and vendors strive to align themselves better, they should all find common ground in the patient. Though the patient experience remains often overlooked in broad conversations about improving HIT, by aligning around what is best for patients, both provider organizations and vendors can be unified as they work to influence policy.

Policy Incentives Need to Align with Goals of Healthcare Organizations to Drive Technology Adoption

Throughout all industries, much of what can be achieved is determined by money, and digital health policy is not an exception. If incentives and funding are misaligned, then behavior will not change. For example, in the UK, there is much discussion on diverting patients from hospitals, but most funding is directed toward acute care; as a result, the focus is on treatment rather than prevention. Value-based care (VBC) can drive alignment between funding and behavior. In today’s healthcare environment, it isn’t easy to link all technology to VBC, but more emphasis on VBC initiatives could lead to powerful partnerships between vendors and healthcare organizations as both take on risk and, as a result, share an equal investment and mutually aligned incentives.

Respondents also note that the public tender process could be revamped to be less onerous. In areas such as Canada, Australia, and much of Europe, decisions can take years due to the strict public tendering process. While safeguarding against corruption and fiscal responsibility is important, there are opportunities to reduce the burden on healthcare organizations and vendors through a simplified process. The technology selection and approval process can be shortened through the development of frameworks that identify vendors who have already demonstrated the needed capabilities. Survey respondents also want an improved focus on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction during change management processes. Healthcare organizations need to focus on and budget for more than just the technology implementation; they should also consider elements such as training to ensure deeper adoption and better outcomes.

Adoption of Cloud Technology in Healthcare

A major discussion during the summit was the cloud and its implications for healthcare. Earlier this year, KLAS surveyed healthcare organizations outside the US regarding their IT investment priorities. A majority of interviewed organizations had started working in the cloud to some degree; some reported a mature cloud program, others had moved some of their major clinical or financial systems into the cloud, and some had started early work into deploying a departmental solution in a public or private cloud or using a SaaS solution (e.g., Office365). The following charts were sourced from the resulting report, KLAS’ Global (Non-US) Healthcare IT Trends 2023.

cloud adoption and readiness
organization cloud status by region and eu membership

Biggest Cloud Myths & What the Industry Should Do to Overcome Them (as Identified by Summit Participants)

Myth #1: If Something Is Labeled as a Cloud Product, Then It Is

There is significant confusion around what constitutes a cloud product. A clear, broadly established definition of the cloud (including its depth and functionality) is necessary for more rapid adoption across the industry. “The cloud” should not be an umbrella term—organizations need clarity from vendors on whether a solution is cloud native, hosted in a private or public cloud, hosted off-premises, or a SaaS offering. Clear, specific information on a cloud product (including the advantages and best use cases of each model) can prevent mismatched expectations between vendors and organizations while also increasing executive buy-in through easier education and increased trust. Regulators need to be very specific in their policies so that provider organizations know which types of deployment models for the cloud are allowed or expected.

Myth #2: The Cloud Is Cheaper

Many think the cloud will be a cheaper option, but in reality, funding is one of the biggest impediments to cloud adoption. However, the replacement of an on-premises system for a cloud-native or SaaS solution hosted in a private or public cloud cannot be considered a one-for-one replacement. The ongoing costs of a cloud solution may be more expensive, but the cloud encompasses different types of services and lends itself to a very specific approach. A savvy healthcare organization should be able to repurpose internal resources (such as those needed for upgrades, infrastructure maintenance, or security) and reduce the spend on infrastructure to offset potential cost increases tied to moving to the cloud. However, it is unlikely that an organization will be able to significantly reduce their workforce with the cloud. In places like Canada or the UK, large consortiums or regional initiatives have formed to leverage the economies of scale that come from advancing a cloud strategy (involving shared hosted solutions) and to share costs across organizations.

Myth #3: The Cloud Is Always the Best, Most Innovative Option

Organizations should not automatically assume the cloud is the right option for them. They need to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a cloud solution can help them realize their goals more effectively than an on-premises solution could. A cloud solution could provide benefits such as the ability to scale computing power based on demand or add storage quickly as needed. Even so, most things that can be accomplished in the cloud can still be accomplished on-premises, and on-premises solutions may still be the best option in many countries, so vendors should not unnecessarily push the cloud on prospective customers. General KLAS data shows that most healthcare organizations don’t feel it currently makes financial sense to shift their existing solutions into the cloud. As a result, many organizations will operate in a hybrid environment for an extended period of time. Likewise, the cloud is not inherently the most innovative option. To be truly innovative, organizations need to be expert in change management and technology adoption. If an organization struggles to adopt their on-premises solutions, they will also struggle to adopt any cloud solutions.

Myth #4: The Cloud Is Just Another Means of Storage

Storage, or infrastructure-as-a-service, is one application of the cloud, but viewing every cloud program in that way will lead to underutilization of the cloud’s capabilities. Healthcare organizations that try to mirror their on-premises setup in the cloud may miss good opportunities to evolve. In this regard, education is critical. During discussions to define what a successful cloud program would look like, cloud vendors and healthcare organizations need to ensure clear communication about and a full understanding of the benefits of the cloud for each organization. There are advantages that come from the cloud beyond data storage that organizations can’t get any other way, such as less downtime, reduced IT burden, improved upgrades and analytics, and strengthened security.

Myth #5: The Cloud Is Less Secure

Though organizations do need to appropriately architect their solutions to protect sensitive data in the cloud, the cloud is not inherently less secure than on-premises solutions. General KLAS data shows that nearly all those interviewed using a public cloud solution cite security as a benefit of the cloud. Some have even used cyberattacks as an impetus behind moving to the cloud. Ultimately, many cyberattacks occur through social engineering, which exposes an organization whether their data is on-premises or in a public or private cloud.

Myth #6: The Cloud Is Quicker & Requires Less Redundancy

Some organizations have reported slow performance after moving to the cloud. Organizations need to understand latency and the necessary level of performance for their end users when determining whether to host in the cloud. The vendor, client, and hyperscaler should have frank, up-front conversations to determine whether certain SLAs can be hit. Similarly, some customers don’t understand they still need a disaster-recovery plan in place when they move to the cloud, so questions around downtime and service recovery should also be addressed up front.

What about Data Sovereignty & the Cloud?

In places like Europe, data sovereignty is perhaps the biggest roadblock to cloud adoption. There are strong emotions around health data independence and storing data within countries. The closed nature of some countries prevents healthcare data from moving to a cloud environment or across borders, even within the EU. Local interpretation of privacy laws (such as GDPR) varies by country, province, or even organization. As previously mentioned, the industry as a whole wants clarification on data sovereignty regulations to be increased and improved.

Best Practices for Provider Organizations Moving from Traditional Capital Expenditure Models to Operating Expenditure Models during Cloud Transitions

As healthcare organizations transition to the cloud, they will likely also transition from traditional capital expenditure (CapEx) funding models to operating expenditure (OpEx) models. However, this likely won’t happen until there are enough SaaS solutions to overcome market inertia. How soon the transition will happen also depends on location—for example, countries like Italy are moving quickly toward a transition, while countries like Germany are much further behind. Across all regions, organizations need to become adept at budgeting using both models.

For organizations evaluating cloud solutions and thus needing to change their modus operandi, the transition can be challenging, as they may be accustomed to receiving regular infusions of large sums of money. While there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for navigating a transition from a CapEx to an OpEx model, there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • An OpEx model is generally more expensive in the long run. In theory, the level of service tied to OpEx for something like SaaS should be higher (with the vendor taking on upgrades and infrastructure responsibilities), and the higher cost should be partially offset by the ability to redirect internal IT resources and reduce spending on capital expenditures.
  • Depending on the contract, by leveraging an OpEx model for a SaaS solution, an organization could theoretically plan the next 10 years of system expenses and thus avoid surprise costs tied to upgrades and infrastructure. As part of the budget, organizations should include egress fees, which can add up quickly when transferring large amounts of data.
  • An OpEx model works best where there are peaks and valleys in spending for a program. Such peaks are often seen with up-front costs tied to new programs and initiatives. For example, both genomics and digital pathology may require high up-front costs for infrastructure and computation power, so a cloud-based OpEx model might be the best solution for newly transitioning organizations.

Best Practices on Defining Roles & Expectations during Cloud & SaaS Engagements

Attendees highlighted the high level of trust needed from both parties during SaaS engagements. Thus, up-front discussions need to be part of the contract negotiations, including details on what a prospective client needs and what each party is accountable for (regarding service resolution, upgrades, security, etc.). Provider organizations should have clear KPIs to help both parties come to an agreement. Best practices include the following:

Both IT vendors & healthcare organizations:

  • Clarify expectations on what the vendor and provider organization will each be accountable for. The vendor needs to know how the solution will work, how to deliver it, and what performance a client can expect. The provider organization needs to understand the vendor’s offering, how it will work relative to existing workflows, how to best work with staff to drive adoption, and the expectations on acceptable performance levels for end users. Hyperscalers should be brought into the discussion to ensure SLAs around latency and performance can be achieved and determine what redundancy options are in place and how long potential downtimes could be.
  • Give special attention to security. Healthcare organizations want vendors to shoulder more responsibility, as security resources are expensive and hard to retain.

Healthcare organizations:

  • Understand the differences between an on-premises solution and a SaaS solution, which often allows for less customization but more regular updates. Transformation projects need leadership. Those involved in governance at a healthcare organization need to be flexible about configuration and personalization while also pushing for more standardization.
  • Provide a lot of education to users about what is and is not in the cloud, especially as it relates to security. Clinicians’ priorities will be knowing how the cloud will impact them or the patient, including elements such as speed, efficiency, and workflows.

IT vendors:

  • Seek to understand an organization’s challenges and strategic objectives and work together to ensure a successful implementation. Vendors shouldn’t start with a focus on selling; there should be an open dialogue about needed solutions, and vendors should be willing to say when they can’t provide something.
  • Keep in contact with cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Google, Microsoft). Clients will expect communication between vendors and hyperscalers to be happening behind the scenes.

2023 Summit Attendees

Healthcare Organizations

Aaron Jones, Chief Nursing and Midwifery Information Officer, Sydney Local Health District, Australia
Abdulla Ahli, Finance Director, Ministry of Health and Prevention, UAE
Adrian Byrne, CIO, Director of Informatics, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, England
Adrian Jiminez, Senior Manager, SOIN, Costa Rica
Ahmad Yahya, COO, CIO, American Hospital Dubai, UAE
Ali Alajme, Digital Health Director, Ministry of Health and Prevention, UAE
Amrita Kumar, Consultant Radiologist, AI Clinical Lead, NHS, England
Anna Hawksley, Associate Director of Transformation, Cybersecurity, NHS Digital, England
Antonia Rollwage, Consultant to Chief Digital Officer, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
Augustine Amusu, CIO, Mediclinic Middle East, UAE
Ayesha Rahim, Clinical Lead for Digital Mental Health, NHS, England
Bruno Campos, Head of IS, Hospital da Luz, Portugal
Christian Stark, IT Project Manager, Tirol Kliniken GmbH, Austria
Dan Prescott, CIO, Manchest University NHS FT, England
David Vieira, Director of IS and Technology, Luz Saude, Portugal
David Walliker, Chief Digital and Partnership Officer, Oxford University Hospitals, England
Dylan Roberts, CDIO, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, England
Erik Sköldenberg, CMIO, COO, Danderyd Hospital, Sweden
Fábio Lario, CMIO, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Brazil
Fahad Bindayel, Director of Applications, Health Informatics Services, King Faisel Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Saudi Arabia
Gina Naughton, RIS/PACS System Administrator, Soalta HealthCare Group, Ireland
Gurhan Zincircioglu, CMIO, Tire Publish Hospital, Turkey
Heidi Tempest, Consulting Urological Surgeon, Oxford University Hospitals NHS, England
Heinz Koopmann-Horn, CIO, Sana Kliniken AG, Germany
Helen Crowther, National Digital Primary Care Nurse Lead, NHS, England
Jacques Rossler, CIO, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Belgium
James Reed, CCIO, Consultant Psychiatrist, Birmingham and Solihull MH NHS FT, England
Janice Cambell, EMR Senior Optimisation Analyst, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Australia
Jeremy Theal, CMIO, Alberta Health Services, Canada
Juan Carlos Rubio Pineda, Subdirector of TIC Services for Use & Administration, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Spain

Lisa Ward, Associate Director of Nursing, County Durham and Darlington, England
Luke Readman, Director of Digital Transformation, NHS, England
Mahmood Adil, National Healthcare Advisor, Qatar Ministry of Public Health, Qatar
Mansour Swaidan, Deputy CIO, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Saudi Arabia
Manuel Pérez Vallina, CIO, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Spain
Marco Foracchia, CIO, Reggio Emilia Local Health Authority, Italy
Mark Kenny, Associate Director of Digital Strategic Transformation, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS FT, England
Markku Mäkijärvi, CMO, HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Finland
Martin Lascano, CMIO, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, UAE
Natasha Phillips, CNIO, NHS, England
Paul Kuehnel, Head of MedTech & IT, Salzburg University Hospital, Austria
Penny Rae, CIO, Alberta Health Services, Canada
Peter Gocke, CDO, Charité, Germany
Philippa Kirkpatrick, CDIO, South East London Integrated Care Board, England
Rashed Almeqbali, Senior System Engineer, SKMCA, UAE
Rebecca Heland, Chief Nursing and Midwifery Information Officer, ACT Health Directorate, Australia
Richard Corbridge, Director General (CDIO), Department for Work and Pensions, England
Rui Gomes, Head of IS, CHUC, Portugal
Sarah Adibi, Deputy CEO, Director of Education, British Institute of Radiology, England
Sarah Corbridge, Healthcare Director, Credera, England
Sarah Muttitt, VP, CIO, The Hospital for Sick Children, Canada
Saskia Roll, Manager of EHR Department, Amsterdam UMC, Netherlands
Sridhar Redla, Consultant Radiologist & Past President (British Institute of Radiology), Princess Alexandra Hospital, England
Stephanie Chau, Director, EMR Optimisation, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Australia
Tamara Sunbul, CMIO, Strategy and Risk Management Consultant, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Saudi Arabia
Timothy Tong, VP of Clinical Informatics, New Frontier United Family Health, China
Viola Brouwer, Director EHR Department, Amsterdam UMC, Netherlands
Yaron Denekamp, CMIO, Clalit Health Services, Israel


Alexander Ryan, Healthcare Director, Hyland
Alison MacDonald, VP & Lead of International Implementation, Nordic Global
Andrea Fiumicelli, CEO, Dedalus SpA
Andreia Beyer, VP, Global Managing Director, Marketing, Tribun Health
Andy Kinnear, Director, Ethical Healthcare Consulting
Anjum Ahmed, CMO, Agfa HealthCare
Brahim Ammor, Fund Partner, Five Arrows Manager
Brandon Welch, CEO,
Brian Patty, CMIO, Medix Technology
Christopher Brice, Healthcare Director, Hyland
Daniel Geue, Senior Manager of Development, VISUS Health IT GmbH
Dario Arfelli, Global Senior Director, Philips
David Fraser, Head of Implementation Planning, EHR Solutions, Medix Technology
David Issott, Partner, Hg
Fried Michael Dahlweid, Group Chief Product & Clinical Officer, Dedalus SpA
Girish Mistry, Consulting Client Executive, Oracle Health
Hans Willi Lohrke, International VP, VISUS Health IT GmbH
Harm Mescher, Senior VP EMEA & APJ, uPerform
Hayley Burgess, COO, Chief Clinical Officer, VigiLanz Corporation
Hyacinthe Warnasuriya, GM, Customer Success Europe, GE Healthcare
Jacques Baudin, Head of Commercialization EMEA-LATAM, Roche Information Solution
Jane Rendall, Managing Director, Sectra
Janez Bensa, CEO, Parsek
Jason Jones, Global Account Manager, Rackspace
Jean-Baptiste Franceschini, Director of Marketing Communication and Development, Softway Medical
Jesse Hodes, Vice President of Sales & Product, Softek Solutions, Inc.
Joab Chen, Global Partnering Lead, Roche Information Solution
Kieran Hughes, President, Europe and Middle East, Nordic Global
Kieran Bamber, Director of Strategic Accounts, UK Healthcare, Tanium
Lauren Bevan, Director of Consulting, Ethical Healthcare Consulting
Leslie Selby, VP, Epic
Liz Griffith, Director of EHR Education, uPerform
Lorna McArthur, Clinical Executive Manager, InterSystems

Luke McGinn, Epic Practice Leader, Medix Technology
Lyle McMillin, Principal Product Manager & General Manager, Enterprise Imaging, Hyland
Lynette Ousby, Managing Director, Alcidion
Marco Giunta, Global Marketing Director, Roche Diagnostics International
Martijn Hartjes, Global Business Leader, Clinical Informatics, Philips Healthcare
Matt Health, Vice President of Business Development, Softek Solutions, Inc.
Mercedes McCoy, VP, Epic
Michael Devins, Director, Product Marketing, ICU Medical
Michael Ristau, VP of Global Marketing, International Growth Officer, 3M
Michelle Tempest, Partner, Candesic
Mike Brandofino, President & COO, Caregility
Mike Lampron, CEO, Mach7 Technologies
Mohamed Abdolell, CEO/Founder, Densitas
Mohammad Waqas, Principal Healthcare Architect, Armis
Nick Lees, Director of Information Security and Compliance, Luma Health
Paul Bonnet, General Manager, VIDAL Vademecum
Paul Barnes, Chief Client Advocacy Executive, Merative Merge
Razvan Atanasiu, CTO, PaxeraHealth
Rudolf Heupel, Managing Director, VISUS Health IT GmbH
Russell Mayne, Healthcare Director, Middle East, Dell Technologies
Scott Andrew, Healthcare Industry Director, Dell Technologies
Seth Frempong, Global Health Advisor, Clinical Lead, Rackspace Technology
Sherley Brothier, Chief Technical Officer, Softway Medical
Simon Harland, Global Health, Director of Sales Growth APAC HealthCare Soltuion
Simon Philip Bolton, Former CEO (NHS Digital), Armis
Simon Rost, Chief Marketing & Strategy Officer, GE Healthcare
Staffan Bergström, Senior Executive VP, Sectra Imaging IT Solutions AB
Stuart Shand, Chief Commercial Officer, Ibex
Susan Ngo, Principal, HC & LS Industry Advisory, Head of Payors & International Healthcare, Qualtrics
Terri LeFort, President, Nordic Global
Thomas Webb, CEO, Ethical Healthcare Consulting
Veronique Lessens, Global Head of Strategy, Agfa HealthCare
Will Smart, Global Director, Dedalus Group

author - Carlisa Cramer
Carlisa Cramer
author - Bronson Allgood
Bronson Allgood
author - Andrew Wright
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
 Download 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.