KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2022 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
2019
Related Segments
Related Articles
Legacy Data Archiving 2020
Which Vendors Consistently Exceed Expectations?
Author
Ryan Oliver
Author
Jennifer Hickenlooper
Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/6/2022 7:12:16 AM and Model.reportId = 1597
When healthcare organizations purchase new software systems, consolidate existing products, or acquire other facilities, they are often left with legacy software solutions that need to be retired. Shuttering these systems and archiving the data is an opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining access to historical patient data. Organizations that have gone through this process recommend considering the following when choosing a data archiving partner:- Project Size & Complexity: Which vendors have completed projects similar to yours in terms of the number of hospitals/clinics involved, the number/type of applications being archived, etc.?
- Extraction & Implementation: Late projects extend the amount of time legacy systems must be maintained and paid for. Which vendors set proper expectations and consistently hit timelines?
- Customer Satisfaction: What does customer satisfaction with system functionality and ongoing support look like post-implementation?
Project Size & Complexity
Harmony Healthcare IT and MediQuant Able to Deliver on Complex Projects and Broad Range of Systems
All vendors in the data archiving market receive high overall scores, though none are market leading in all three areas examined in this report. Harmony Healthcare IT and MediQuant stand out for their experience archiving a wide variety of software and for being fairly consistent at satisfying customers with large, complex archiving needs.
† Complexity score calculated based on type and number of software system(s) archived, type of customer organization (clinic vs. hospital), and length of extraction project.
‡ Distribution counts are based on individual respondents, not unique organizations, and may therefore differ from the sample sizes shown for other metrics.
Extraction and Implementation
Strong Communication from Triyam, ELLKAY Leads to Smooth Extractions
Triyam customers, who tend to be small to midsized hospitals and clinics, report the highest average satisfaction with the system implementation process, and Triyam is most consistent (with limited data) at completing the extraction process on time or ahead of schedule, including for the few larger, more complex projects they have recently completed. Multiple customers say the vendor set realistic timelines and expectations, and 40% report that their extraction was completed sooner than expected. The system is easy to use, requiring very little training for end users. ELLKAY’s interviewed customers are mostly ambulatory organizations, including a mix of small and also very large, complex projects. Customers say the vendor has good communication and solid processes and was able to keep promises and meet timelines. Customer feedback for CITI comes from a limited number of clients. Two of these customers describe CITI as nimble during the extraction process, allowing them to still meet timelines even when problems arise. The one CITI customer who reported missed timelines cited a lack of resources on CITI’s side.
Unclear Expectations Cause Missed Extraction Timelines for Some MediQuant, Galen, Harmony Customers
All vendors complete the extraction process on time or ahead of schedule for a majority of their clients. Customers of MediQuant, Galen Healthcare (limited data), and Harmony Healthcare IT are the most likely to report delays, and these delays are most common among larger, more complex projects. While acknowledging that their own organizations are partly to blame for extraction delays, customers who report missed timelines wish their vendor had set better expectations up front as to how long the extraction would take and what the customer’s own responsibilities would be. Harmony customers do note that their vendor does an excellent job of maintaining communication and working to mitigate timeline problems once they arise.
Satisfaction with Functionality
Harmony Healthcare IT Clients Attribute Achieved Outcomes to Strong Functionality
After the extraction is complete and the software is live, healthcare organizations want to be able to easily access and use their data. Each solution enables this through slightly different functionality, but across the board, most customers are satisfied. Harmony Healthcare IT customers say that the software is integrated and easy to use and that they are able to easily find patient records. Customers also mention that the auditing and release of information capabilities work well. Reported outcomes include being able to retire aging systems and equipment and being able to securely store and access historical data.
Other vendors also perform well overall. Their customers highlight various product strengths and areas for improvement:
- CITI: Customers appreciate the security features and ability to customize the solution.
- ELLKAY: Most customers say the system meets their needs and is easy to use; a few aren’t able to modify the data as much as they would like.
- Galen Healthcare: Viewed as stronger for clinical data than financial data. Some customers report issues getting complete integration between their EMR and the archived data. Customers like being able to track data, such as A1c scores, across both new and legacy patient data.
- Legacy Data Access: Customization possible. Some customers report issues integrating certain systems.
- MediQuant: Customers report strong functionality for A/R work-down. Multiple customers report frustration at not being able to create their own custom reports.
- Triyam: Customers report that functionality has improved over the last year (e.g., the system is now connected to the EMR via APIs).
Satisfaction with Ongoing Support
Legacy Data Access, ELLKAY Less Consistent in Providing Proactive Service
Overall, Legacy Data Access (limited data) and ELLKAY customers are satisfied with the level of proactive service they receive; a few misses bring down their scores. A couple of Legacy Data Access customers say the vendor didn’t communicate well regarding timelines and future opportunities. One ELLKAY customer said the vendor could better communicate about the schedule and content of their upgrades; another feels it takes too long for tickets to be resolved. MediQuant is typically a good communicator, especially during the extraction phase and immediately after the go-live. A few customers note that the vendor could be more timely in building requested reports and more responsive with ongoing support. Triyam customers highlight the vendor’s proactive communication and their email/live web support. They occasionally experience a language barrier with some of Triyam’s technical support personnel. CITI is considered a good partner; the vendor communicates when problems arise and is easy to engage with.
Best Practices for Successfully Archiving a Legacy System
Healthcare organizations that have completed a data archiving project offer the following best practices to peers who may be considering or embarking upon a similar engagement:
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 online in real time so that other providers and IT professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences. To enable readers to more quickly understand high-level differences in vendor performance and give better context as to how each product compares to other offerings in the market, KLAS has organized the questions from the standard evaluation 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. KLAS’ standard evaluation was used over the last 12 months to collect feedback regarding customer satisfaction and vendor performance. Additional feedback regarding the type and number of applications archived, the length and complexity of the extraction process, and the timeliness of the extraction was collected using a supplemental evaluation (though some respondents went live with their archive too long ago to answer questions related to the extraction/implementation process). The number of unique responding organizations for each evaluation type is given in the chart to the right.
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.
Writer
Elizabeth Pew
Designer
Madison Moniz
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.