KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2024 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Healthcare Services 2021
(A Decision Insights Report)
Author
Warren Whitford
Author
Sam Eaquinto
Since November 2020, KLAS has collected insights regarding 349 decisions by 245 healthcare organizations to engage a services firm. This report offers a first, high-level look at services decisions specifically. The types of services with the highest decision energy in the last year include HIT staffing, HIT advisory services, HIT implementation leadership (small), and technical services. Ongoing insights on services decisions will be available on the KLAS website in the first half of 2022, and as this research continues over time, data on individual markets and firms will grow more representative.
Long-Established, HIT-Focused Services Continue to Have High Decision Energy
A Look at Firms Considered Most Often
The following table provides a quick look at KLAS Decision Insights data and KLAS performance data on the most often considered services firms (at least 10 considerations total). It should be noted that some considerations and selections are validated as a result of firms sharing client lists with KLAS, while others are from clients and potential clients KLAS comes across in the course of other normal research. As a result, a firm’s transparency in sharing client lists may affect how often KLAS validates selections for that firm.
Who Is Considered & Selected in the Highest-Energy Segments?
Note: Considerations include decisions not yet finalized or decisions where the firm was considered but not chosen.
COVID-19 has compounded health systems’ staffing challenges. The majority of projects in 2020 were put on hold, creating a backlog. Organizations are looking to third-party firms to help complete projects and backfill staff, with the goal of allowing their FTEs to maintain day-to-day operations.
As large EMR implementations slow, many healthcare organizations have shifted focus to more strategic projects and sought out advisory services. These include traditional IT planning and assessment, EMR optimization, and revenue cycle optimization (especially with added financial pressure from COVID-19), along with services for areas like interoperability and analytics.
Recent demand for technical services is driven by healthcare organizations’ consolidation, resulting in the need for technology continuity. A broad range of technical skills are required to convert data and integrate clinical applications, analytics tools, and other platforms.
COVID-19 has delayed numerous implementation projects (system consolidations, upgrades, EMR bolt-ons, etc.). This has created a backlog that organizations are actively addressing; despite some continued COVID-19 pressures, organizations are finding creative ways to move forward with implementations rather than leaving them on pause.
Selections Often Based on Expertise & Prior Experience; Cost the Most Common Reason for Not Selecting
“We brought in [the firm] because they had a lot of experience with the application as well as providers. They worked alongside our team members while we continued to build up our numbers. What tilted the decision in [the firm’s] favor was ultimately the value and the expertise that they brought to the table, the team size they could provide, and the cost. [The firm] was very practical in meeting our needs. They were easy to deal with, and I didn’t have to worry. [The firm] asked for exactly what we needed and met that need. They were okay when we said we didn’t need certain things. [The firm] had the most relevant skill set. They were the right partners.” —Divisional VP
“We chose [the firm] because of our history with them. They have done work for us before, and they have been part of our process. The current engagement is an extension of our previous work with [the firm] for our enterprise implementation.” —Executive director
“Because of [the firm’s] cost, they were so far above all the other bidders in terms of magnitude. We felt that somewhere in the RFP they had missed the boat on what we were asking to be done. They disqualified themselves because they were just so far out. We didn’t want to invest the time to try to get them back in the ballpark.” —VP of IT
“[The firm] didn’t seem very organized. We interviewed a few different firms before COVID-19, and they all did in-person presentations. But [the firm] just did a phone call and didn’t really have answers to a lot of our questions. Their presentation didn’t seem to be well put together, so we didn’t feel that they wanted to work with us.” —Administrative VP
About This Report
The data in this report comes from KLAS’ Decision Insights data. Since 2017, KLAS has been gathering information as to which software vendors are being replaced, considered, and purchased and what factors drive these decisions. This report represents the first look at selection decisions for services firms. When KLAS interviews a provider organization about a product or service in use, we also ask about any recent or upcoming decisions (within the last 12 months or planned in the next 24 months) to purchase a solution or engage a services firm. Information about those decisions is captured in the form of Decision Insights data. This report includes data collected between November 2020 to October 2021.
Decision Insights data does not represent a comprehensive census or win/loss market share study. Rather, it is intended to help provider organizations understand which vendors and firms have market energy and why.
Writer
Amanda Wind
Designer
Jess Wallace-Simpson
Project Manager
Natalie Jamison
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.