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

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Home Health 2024
|
2024
Home Health EHR 2021
|
2021
Homecare 2014
|
2014
Homecare 2011
|
2011
2010 Homecare Update
|
2010
Home Health Market Review 2006
|
2006

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
Home Health 2022 Home Health 2022
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Home Health 2022
Exploring Technology Satisfaction in a Dynamic Market

author - Paul Hess
Author
Paul Hess
author - Paul Warburton
Author
Paul Warburton
 
October 27, 2022 | Read Time: 5  minutes

The home health market has seen renewed energy since 2020 as COVID-19 and efforts to improve outcomes and decrease costs have shifted more care to the home. As a result, the number of home health agencies has grown. Amid this growth, home health agencies continue to face complex billing and a limited labor market. They want to make the right EMR investments and fully leverage those investments in ways that improve operational efficiency and interoperability, minimize the need for other IT purchases, and keep clinicians happy (thereby mitigating turnover). This report looks at which home health vendors best drive clinician satisfaction. A similar report for hospice is planned for 2023.

Homecare Homebase Is the Vendor of Choice for Large Independent Organizations, Despite Lagging Development

Despite near-average satisfaction among Homecare Homebase customers, 90% of respondents say the product is part of their long-term plans. This is driven largely by perception among large independent agencies (1,501+ ADC) that Homecare Homebase is the only vendor whose technology meets the needs of agencies their size. This technology includes robust platform integration, interfacing with third-party solutions, and a broad technology suite with strong financial functionality, clinical functionality, and granular data analytics. Indeed, all large independent agencies in this research sample are Homecare Homebase customers, and large health system–owned agencies also frequently select the vendor. Middling customer satisfaction stems from a sense that the vendor’s near monopoly among large independent agencies has stifled innovation, particularly in regard to improving clinician workflows and documentation. While the vendor provides documentation capabilities optimized for use on a touch screen, customers would like to see those capabilities improved.

estimated_market_share_by_agency_adc
overall_performance_score_vs_part_of_long_term_plans

Independent Agencies Most Satisfied with MatrixCare, Citing Strong Clinician Workflows

Overall, independent agencies that use MatrixCare report higher satisfaction than peers using other vendors’ products. These agencies particularly value the system’s ease of use and strong navigation for clinicians—the system is designed for use on tablets, and it can be used offline and synced later. Customers want to see additional training to ensure clinicians can optimize the system through personalization.

independent_agencies_overall_performance_score_by_agency_adc

Epic, MEDITECH Deliver Needed Integration for Health System–Owned Agencies

Among health system–owned agencies, Epic delivers the highest customer satisfaction. Health system decision-makers tend to be more satisfied than home health professionals; the former group highlights integration as a main strength, as it facilitates data sharing and allows organizations to consolidate vendors. Customers also appreciate Epic’s willingness to listen and take feedback around support and around identifying and developing new functionality to meet customers’ needs. Home health professionals would like to see some system enhancements, such as improved capabilities for documenting on touch screens and better alignment between Remote Client and Hyperspace. Health system–owned agencies using MEDITECH value their ability to get cost savings by using the same vendor for home health and the larger health system EMR. Several customers report they want more functionality and an improved end-user workflow.

health_system_owned_agencies_overall

Customers of Go-Forward Netsmart Solution Suffer from Similar Support & Functionality Challenges as Predecessors

Three Netsmart offerings are included in this research: Homecare, Homecare Advisor, and the go-forward solution, myUnity Enterprise. (A fourth product targeted to small agencies, myUnity Essentials, is not included in the data). Across the platforms, customers note that Netsmart struggles to proactively engage with them, preventing the vendor from identifying issues before they become larger problems and leading to development that doesn’t match customers’ functionality needs. Customers of myUnity Enterprise want additional development that will allow for easier integration with third-party solutions, such as lab and pharmacy systems. They note that previous commitments from Netsmart regarding integration have gone unfulfilled. Some Homecare and Homecare Advisor customers are concerned the vendor doesn’t devote enough resources to enhancing their solutions, and some are hesitant to move to myUnity Enterprise due to concerns about a lack of partnership in delivering key functionality. Several customers have noticed that as WellSky has made acquisitions and expanded their solutions, the quality of support has decreased, and the vendor has been less proactive about communicating future plans.

proactive_service_vs_delivery_of_new_technology

Problem Areas Differ Across Vendors

Across vendors, home health agencies most commonly want improvement in support, ongoing training, and product usability. However, each vendor has unique opportunities for improvement. The table below provides transparency around common challenges agencies may run into while working with each vendor.

top_three_most_frequently_mentioned_challenges

About This Report

Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT solutions and services their organizations use. For this report, interviews were conducted over the last 12 months using KLAS’ standard quantitative evaluation for healthcare software, which is composed of 16 numeric ratings questions and 4 yes/no questions, all weighted equally. Combined, the ratings for these questions make up the overall performance score, which is measured on a 100-point scale. The questions are organized into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.

customer_eperience_pillars

Sample Sizes

Unless otherwise noted, sample sizes displayed throughout this report (e.g., n=16) represent the total number of unique customer organizations interviewed for a given vendor or solution. However, it should be noted that to allow for the representation of differing perspectives within any one customer organization, samples may include surveys from different individuals at the same organization. The table below shows the total number of unique organizations interviewed for each vendor or solution as well as the total number of individual respondents. Some respondents choose not to answer particular questions, meaning the sample size for any given vendor or solution can change from question to question. When the number of unique organization responses 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.

sample_sizes

Product Designations Used in This Report

  • Not Primary [NP]: Product that is not the vendor’s lead product in the market segment but can still be purchased and is still supported. In some cases, the product may not be actively sold in the listed market segment. Netsmart Homecare and Netsmart Homecare Advisor are both marked as Not Primary in this research since Netsmart myUnity Enterprise has been announced as the vendor’s go-forward platform.
author - Carlisa Cramer
Writer
Carlisa Cramer
author - Bronson Allgood
Designer
Bronson Allgood
author - Andrew Wright
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
 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.