KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2023 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2020
2019
2017
2014
2012
Related Segments
Gravimetric Verification In IV Workflow Management 2021
How Has The Market Progressed?
Author
Jackson Tate
Author
Paul Warburton
Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/3/2023 1:39:41 AM and Model.reportId = 1788
Gravimetric verification has been touted as a way to drive significant patient safety gains, and most major IV workflow management vendors have released this functionality. However, the associated challenges (e.g., maintaining an accurate drug density database, changes to compounding workflows) have hurt perceived value for some healthcare organizations, and so far, only BD has demonstrated broad deployment in their customer base. This report examines the maturity of vendors’ gravimetric verification functionality, provides a first look at BD’s performance in this area, and assesses how the technology affects purchase decisions across the market.GRAVIMETRIC VERIFICATION
BD Far Outpaces Competitors in Rolling Out Gravimetric Verification to Customers
Gravimetric verification has been available for years, but interest in this functionality has grown, and now it is more commonly a consideration factor in new purchase decisions. The table below highlights each vendor’s status with gravimetric verification. For additional insights on the barriers that have slowed adoption, see page 8 in the full report.
BD Seen as Pioneer with Gravimetric Verification Adoption Push; Customers Need More Help Navigating the Learning Curve
Customers see BD as a gravimetric verification thought leader who has helped the market identify the value of the technology and establish processes that maximize safety benefits across a broad array of drug types. BD receives praise for providing recommended hard and soft stops and the ability to adjust limits as needed. Clients would like more guidance from BD in several areas. Implementations require significant IT resources and pharmacist-workflow changes, pulling down satisfaction. Change management also often falls on the organization, including in some recent implementations. Post-go-live, organizations must navigate hurdles and workarounds to optimize workflows and accommodate different compounding types, leading to varied adoption of certain workflows (e.g., batching). BD’s newest update aims to better support batching workflows; not all customers have been able to leverage it yet. Organizations that have been live longer and had more time to address workflow issues tend to be more satisfied with the product overall. BD support personnel are responsive to and helpful with questions and concerns. Customers want BD to more proactively share knowledge and best practices from other BD customers to advance their success.
Across the market, top concerns that are slowing gravimetric verification adoption include extra workflow steps, issues with gravimetric scales, and challenges with maintaining an accurate drug density database. See page 8 in the full report for additional insights on adoption barriers.
OVERALL IV WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT
Grifols’ Stable Technology and Responsive Support Drive Satisfaction
In terms of overall IV workflow management (not specific to gravimetric verification), Grifols’ PharmacyKeeper Verification has proven to be a reliable, easy-to-use solution, and customers report consistent support from the vendor. For customers not prioritizing gravimetric verification, the solution supports efficient workflows. Epic clients also report easy workflows thanks to IV Dispense Prep being on the same platform as Willow, eliminating possible integration hurdles. Customers looking for only barcode scanning safety features deploy the solution quickly, while organizations who want hard stops, compounding guide references, and gravimetric verification are more hesitant to deploy Epic. Baxter customers value the solution’s stability and robust photo-capture functionality. Customers note slow development in recent years and limited integration as opportunities for Baxter to improve. Customers of BD (detailed above) value the vendor’s leadership with gravimetric verification. They would like additional guidance and best practices from BD to optimize their experience.
Buying Energy: Lack of Gravimetric Verification Proof Points Limits Baxter, Epic, Grifols & Omnicell
Although healthcare organizations are divided on the value of gravimetric verification and when it should be deployed, a significant portion are prioritizing it in purchase decisions. These organizations see BD as a clear leader in rolling out this capability. As a result, BD is the likely choice in about half of purchase decisions KLAS has validated. BD also gains consideration thanks to bundling with their broader suite. Organizations choosing other vendors tend to do so for reasons like partnership and ease of use.
Omnicell has lost market interest over the last couple of years, as early gravimetric verification customers have struggled to get the solution live. Many who consider but don’t choose Omnicell often go with BD for gravimetric verification. Epic is the default choice of organizations prioritizing integration with their Epic EMR (they don’t pay an additional cost). Several organizations express concern that the Epic solution’s lack of hard stops and the slow rollout of gravimetric verification (released in late 2019, no live customers validated yet) are patient-safety gaps. Grifols’ PharmacyKeeper Verification solution receives consideration from organizations looking for a steadily developed solution with strong, established workflows and good ease of use. The lack of customers live on gravimetric verification gives some organizations pause. Others note the need for improved functionality in specific areas, such as reporting and integration with the core pharmacy system. Roughly 25% of Baxter DoseEdge System customers have begun considering a move to other solutions that are being more rapidly developed and have established gravimetric verification workflows.
About This Report
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT products and services their organizations use. These interviews are conducted using a standard quantitative evaluation, and the scores and commentary collected are shared in reports like this one and online in real time so that other healthcare professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences. The questions from the standard evaluation are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.
To supplement the data gathered with this standard evaluation, KLAS also creates various supplemental evaluations that target a subset of KLAS’ overall sampling and delve deeper into the most pressing questions facing healthcare technology today.
The data in this report comes from both evaluation types and was collected over the last 12 months; the number of unique responding organizations for each solution and survey type is given in the chart below.
What Does “Limited Data” Mean?
Some products are used in only a small number of facilities, some vendors are resistant to providing client lists, and some respondents choose not to answer particular questions. Thus a vendor’s sample size may vary from question to question and 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 number of reporting sites, the possibility exists for KLAS scores to change significantly as new surveys are collected.
Overall scores are measured on a 100-point scale and represent the weighted average of several yes/no questions as well as other questions scored on a 9-point scale.
Product Designations Used in This Report
- Component [C]: Product that typically includes most but not all components that comprise a complete system or that serves only a subset of the market. Epic IV Dispense Prep is marked as component because it offers limited photo capture capabilities.
Writer
Amanda Wind Smith
Designer
Jess Wallace-Simpson
Project Manager
Isaac Burgi
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. © 2023 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.