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



Related Series

Interactive Patient Systems 2017
Delivering More than Patient Education

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
Interactive Patient Systems 2014 Interactive Patient Systems 2014
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Interactive Patient Systems 2014
Are EMR-Vendor Solutions Changing the Game?

author - Adam Cherrington
Adam Cherrington
author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
June 15, 2014 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 11/29/2022 5:17:00 AM and Model.reportId = 900

Interactive patient systems (IPS) offer a variety of bedside tools covering educational and entertainment content, satisfaction surveys, and services requests (e.g., dietary, environmental). Traditionally dominated by best-of-breed players, the IPS market looks poised for a shift as EMR vendors become more involved. How big of an impact will they have? What role does functionality play? Who provides standout service? Are solutions being leveraged outside the hospital? KLAS spoke with 162 organizations to find out.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 11/29/2022 5:17:00 AM and Model.reportId= 900 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637498874841210436

how do the vendors performwhat improvements do you need



Though Cerner’s and Epic’s IPS products are noted to be less robust than best-of-breed products, all Epic EMR respondents and nearly all Cerner EMR respondents considering an IPS acquisition plan to deploy their EMR vendor’s solution. Among Cerner and Epic EMR respondents currently using a best-of-breed IPS, none are planning to switch to their EMR vendor’s solution. Those using other EMRs are mainly considering GetWellNetwork. Overall, 85% of larger hospitals without an IPS are considering a purchase.


Among the best-of-breed vendors, GetWellNetwork leads in overall satisfaction thanks to intuitive, robust functionality, quick development, and good service. Skylight and TeleHealth Services are not far behind. Skylight pairs exceptional service with a functional product, though providers would like better ease of use and quicker development. TeleHealth Services has basic functionality at an attractive price point, though vendor interaction beyond good phone support is lacking.


Most vendors promote the ability to leverage their product outside the hospital. KLAS validated one Cerner, one Epic, and two Skylight customers engaging patients at home via their IPS to gauge progress or extend educational content. KLAS also validated one customer piloting GetWellNetwork in clinics. No respondents reported using SONIFI HEALTH, TeleHealth Services, or TVRC outside the hospital.


Over one-third of respondents highlighted integration as their biggest need, focusing on the seamless flow of patient-education documentation to the EMR. GetWellNetwork had the most respondents report this as the top priority, though other best-of-breed customers noted similar needs. Deeper integration to more parts of the EMR was also a request from early Cerner and Epic adopters. Other top requests included better education, entertainment, and outpatient content; improved ease of use; and reduced cost.

decision logic as reported by providers


Ranked Vendors


Functionally rich. Highly regarded for development. Most customers still want deeper EMR integration. Good engagement from vendor executives, though technical support can be stretched thin. Most often mentioned among those looking to best-of-breed products—93% would buy again.


Strong customer service and executive engagement with customers. Functionally rich. Ease of use is challenging—too many clicks and difficulty using pillow speakers. Two respondents reported engaging orthopedic patients outside the hospital. Customers want deeper EMR integration. Mentioned but not as top consideration by potential buyers—92% would buy again.


Primarily used for educational content. Good support and communication but less proactive outreach and vendor partnering. 89% would buy again and report product has needed, but basic, functionality. Deep EMR integration generally lacking. Not mentioned as top consideration by potential buyers.

Non-Ranked Vendors


Being considered by Cerner customers to add to their Cerner portfolio. Validated use outside the hospital with Cerner Member Portal. One-third state product has needed functionality, but customers optimistic coming upgrades will improve product. Integration with PowerChart a plus, but could be tighter for documentation. Choppy service and support—knowledge base of support staff is thin.


Easy-to-use content; mainly used for basic entertainment. Some educational-content use. Financial restructuring caused some providers concern. Integration with EMR a challenge. Customers report great technical support and implementation teams, but lacking vendor executive interaction. Less than two-thirds of respondents said they would buy it again. Not mentioned as a top consideration by potential buyers.


Smaller customer base, primarily in the Northeast. Mostly used for educational videos. Some have more extensive functionality. Very good support team from implementation and beyond. Not mentioned as a top consideration by potential buyers.

Other Vendors


Currently used by a few Epic EMR customers. Considered widely by Epic EMR customers without an IPS. Validated use outside the hospital with MyChart. Newest entrant to market. Functionality like entertainment not on par with best-of-breed systems. Integration with EpicCare a plus, but customers want better data flow for documentation and ordering.

support and partnership differentiation

 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. © 2022 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.