Premium Reports
Labor and Delivery 2015

Labor and Delivery 2015
A Deep Look at Integration and Functionality

Authored by: | Read Time: 3 minutes

Providers planning to purchase a new L&D documentation system are looking for meaningful connectivity with core clinical systems without sacrificing robust functionality. KLAS interviewed providers to discover which vendors provide the strongest connectivity and which provide the documentation functionality that best meets providers’ needs.

1. GE HEALTHCARE DELIVERS STRONGEST BEST-OF-BREED CONNECTIVITY

GE has achieved stronger inpatient EMR connectivity than any other best-of-breed vendor, successfully exchanging data with a variety of EMRs. Additionally, the tight integration between GE’s documentation and surveillance systems eliminates double documentation and manual data entry. Both Hill-Rom and CCSI, also best-of-breed systems, have issues connecting with inpatient EMRs as well as other ancillary systems, and the interfaces with their surveillance systems are not as complete—some data doesn’t flow into the documentation system. Still, CCSI and Hill-Rom outperform GE in terms of overall functionality, thanks to strong CDS tools and, in the case of CCSI, workflows with high ease of use.

VENDOR PERFORMANCE

Vendor Performance

2. EPIC DELIVERS STRONGEST CONNECTIVITY, CERNER OFFERS FULL SUITE

True integration exists between Epic’s L&D documentation system and inpatient EMR, eliminating almost all double documentation and thereby reducing the risk of documentation error. Because Epic does not provide an L&D surveillance system, providers must turn to other vendors to fill this need. Epic has had the most success connecting with GE’s surveillance system through GE’s Connect module, which providers must pay for. Cerner is the only vendor to offer an interfaced EMR, documentation, and surveillance suite. Cerner has strong EMR integration, although there are still instances of information not flowing properly. Many customers are considering adopting Cerner’s surveillance system as well, due to the challenges they experience connecting Cerner to best-of-breed surveillance systems as Cerner encourages providers to adopt FetaLink. While improvements are needed to make Cerner’s workflow more effective in an L&D setting, customers are optimistic about the future.

EPIC'S INTEGRATION W/SURVEILLANCE

Epic's Integration with Surveillance

3. PERIGEN'S AND PHILIPS' FUNCTIONALITY MEETS MOST NEEDS, BUT CONNECTIVITY IS A CHALLENGE

PeriGen has improved their overall functionality in recent years, especially around analytics, where the canned reports are noted to be strong. PeriGen’s surveillance functionality is robust and flexible. However, as integration has become more important, providers’ satisfaction with PeriGen’s ability to connect with most inpatient EMRs has sharply declined in recent years. Similarly, Philips’ functionality improvements in areas such as remote access for physicians are often eclipsed by the challenges providers experience with connectivity. For many on both systems, the functionality gains are not worth the cost of maintaining an interface that still requires a large amount of double documentation and manual work.

Challenges

4. CCSI, PERIGEN, AND GE HEALTHCARE OFFER BEST DOCUMENTATION AND CHARTING TOOLS

CCSI’s documentation and charting tools are easy to customize, have high clinician usability, and have the functionality to meet providers’ needs. While some feel GE’s tools contain redundancies, the logical workflow and ability to easily bring in surveillance data satisfy most providers. Epic customers have observed steady product improvement and a more L&D–oriented workflow. PeriGen stands out for functionality when compared to enterprise systems, with workflow and alerts as highlights. Providers are least satisfied with Cerner’s and Hill-Rom’s documentation tools. Cerner lacks an L&D–specific workflow design, and Hill-Rom is not flexible enough to meet many providers’ needs.

STRENGTH OF DOC./CHARTING TOOLS

Strength of Doc./Charting Tools

5. PROVIDERS USING PERIGEN, PHILIPS, AND CCSI SEARCHING FOR ALTERNATIVES

Most customers are satisfied with PeriGen’s documentation tools. Still, one-third of providers say PeriGen is not part of their long-term-plans due to poor EMR connectivity as well as the manpower required to maintain interfaces. Philips customers also have concerns about connectivity, primarily with the inpatient EMR, laboratory, and OR systems. CCSI was awarded Best in KLAS in 2014, yet 21% of their customers plan to leave because of poor integration and stagnant development. Most Hill-Rom and GE Healthcare customers plan to stick with their vendor; however, providers would like new technology to be developed and deployed at a faster pace. Epic has steadily improved their functionality, and many customers are optimistic about future improvements to Cerner’s suite.

LONG-TERM PLANS VS. INTEGRATION

Long-Term Plans vs Integration

Want to see full details?

 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. © 2018 KLAS Enterprises, 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.