Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Midsize/Large Ambulatory EMR 2022
Healthcare Organizations’ Hierarchy of Needs
Technology needs are constantly evolving in healthcare, yet vendor development efforts may not always align with provider organizations’ top priorities. To better understand what these priorities are in midsize and large ambulatory practices (11+ physicians), KLAS interviewed over 500 respondents from such organizations regarding the areas most in need of improvement from their EMR vendor.
Ease of Use/Workflow Is Decidedly Clinics’ Most Pressing Concern
When asked to identify the top three areas their EMR vendor needs to improve, more than 70% of respondents mentioned ease of use/workflows, with 44% of respondents ranking this as their number-one priority. Across all vendors in the report, common ease of use/workflow issues that respondents want addressed include a high number of clicks, irrelevant information displayed within the EMR, lack of specialty-specific functionality, and poor integration that necessitates disruptive screen hopping. Respondents feel improvements in these areas would give clinicians more freedom to interact face-to-face with patients instead of a computer screen.
Top-Tier Solutions
Epic, MEDITECH, and athenahealth Offer Leading EMR Experience for Customers
Epic customers rarely report functionality issues or system bugs as a top concern, and they rate the overall performance and overall product quality very high. Customers praise the solution’s code quality and Epic’s QA process, which ensures that updates roll out reliable, high-quality functionality. However, ease of use/workflow is the top concern for more than half of respondents, with many saying the solution is designed with an inpatient-first focus that overcomplicates workflows in the ambulatory care environment. MEDITECH customers appreciate the Expanse product’s overall stability and highlight the vendor’s progress in consistently developing new functionality. Respondents also say the product’s capabilities have not been oversold, and there are no significant unexpected gaps. Customer feedback includes improving the overall workflow to help users take advantage of the right functionality and navigate care encounters more efficiently. athenahealth respondents are the most satisfied with ease of use and workflows, saying the intuitive layout aligns with users’ expectations and the clinician experience. Specialists would like athena to add specialty content/functionality to the solution to better meet their needs.
Middle-Tier Solutions
Product Difficulties Affect Overall Satisfaction with Cerner & Greenway Health; Operations Concerns Diminish Value for NextGen Customers
Cerner is frequently mentioned by customers as needing to improve workflows. Respondents are very frustrated due to their perception of Cerner primarily focusing on improving the usability of inpatient workflows instead of outpatient workflows. Of the fully rated vendors, Greenway Health has the most customer respondents citing basic product functionality as their number-one priority, with several saying the vendor’s functionality is behind the curve. Notably, customers of Cerner and Greenway Health are less likely to want improved support or relationships, thanks to each vendor’s recent efforts to cultivate better customer relationships and address concerns. NextGen Healthcare respondents commonly feel they aren’t seeing the solution’s full value, indicating this is one of the main factors detracting from their overall experience. While customers generally express satisfaction with the solution, they would like the vendor to better assist with the setup and training. This help would improve system usability and allow organizations to realize the full value of the product.
Bottom-Tier Solutions
Support & Relationship Are Top Concerns for eClinicalWorks & Allscripts Customers
Phone and web support are significant challenges for many eClinicalWorks and Allscripts customers, and a large portion want their vendors to improve the support before focusing on any other aspect of the solution. eClinicalWorks customers are the most dissatisfied, saying the vendor is not responsive to tickets and issues, does not keep promises around product fixes/resolutions, and does not have support representatives who know the product well enough to assist when problems arise. Reported challenges for Allscripts customers (both Professional EHR and TouchWorks EHR) include outsourced support, a lack of proactivity in identifying and solving issues, and a lack of personal touch, leading customers to believe Allscripts is not a true partner in customer success. Customers note that support has always been problematic but that frustration has grown as the outsourced support has become less knowledgeable and more backlogged. Regarding the Allscripts Professional product, customers are frustrated with system slowness, rigidity in the workflows, code-quality issues resulting from problematic updates, and a significant number of general usability issues.
Epic & MEDITECH Best at Enabling Patient-Centered Care; eClinicalWorks & Allscripts TouchWorks Customers Feel Solutions Were Oversold
Basic product functionality greatly impacts organizations’ ability to provide patient care. Epic customers are the most likely to feel their solution supports patient-centered care, citing strong integration with other Epic customers (both acute care and ambulatory) that gives clinicians a more holistic view of a patient’s care journey and the tools to drive positive clinical outcomes. However, others find the functionality overwhelming and would like Epic to simplify the workflow and make it encounter specific. MEDITECH customers highlight the vendor’s progress in developing functionality for the ambulatory setting. With a platform that is now integrated across ambulatory and acute care settings, users can more fully understand a patient’s medical history and determine proper treatment. Additionally, users note they can quickly move through their workflow on a tablet or mobile device, allowing them more time to interact directly with patients. athenahealth customers feel their system’s layout promotes efficient care delivery and direct interaction with patients. Additionally, they say athena’s integration with CommonWell enables them to make better decisions around patient-centered care. NextGen Healthcare users highlight significant improvements the vendor has recently made and are optimistic that future changes will positively impact their ability to deliver care. Missing functionality and product-quality issues are common complaints from eClinicalWorks and Allscripts TouchWorks customers. Users feel these solutions were oversold and do not meet their patient experience expectations.
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.
In addition to the questions in the standard software evaluation, we also asked ambulatory care organizations several supplemental questions specific to the ambulatory EMR market. These questions asked respondents to identify the top three areas their EMR vendor should focus on now, along with how well their EMR vendor’s technology supports patient-centered care.
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.
Writer
Sarah Hanson
Designer
Jessica Bonnett
Project Manager
Andrew Wright
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.