Tell us about you

Work Email required

Organization required

First Name required

Last Name required

Job Title required

Phone required (###) ###-####, or int ######...

City required

State/Province required

Tell us about your organization

error messages will go here...

Looks like we’re already familiar with you!

Please press next to continue with the survey.

Looks like we’re already familiar with you!

According to your account type you are not eligible to take surveys at this time. If this is a mistake, please contact KLAS.

If you are trying to access KLAS research data and reports, an email has been sent to   with a link to login.

If the email doesn't appear in your inbox, ask your IT department to add KLASresearch.com to your company spam filter's "whitelist", and check your email's spam folder.

Membership Commitment

In exchange for giving their feedback, healthcare providers can create an account to get access to industry reports, user commentary, and real-time ratings.

By submitting your account request, you are engaged in patient care as either an employee (or contractor) of your provider organization and that you confirm that you have reviewed and agree to abide by the Terms of Use for this website as updated periodically.

To learn more about how we process and protect your personal data, you may view our Privacy policy.

By submitting your account request, you confirm that you have reviewed and agree to abide by the Terms of Use for this website as updated periodically. To learn more about how we process and protect your personal data, you may view our Privacy policy.

By submitting your account request, you confirm that you have reviewed and agree to abide by the Terms of Use for this website as updated periodically.

To learn more about how we process and protect your personal data, you may view our Privacy policy.

 

To learn more about how we process and protect your personal data, you may view our Privacy policy.

 

To learn more about how we process and protect your personal data, you may view our Privacy policy.

Thank You! Your information was submitted successfully!

Next Steps - An email has been sent to . Please follow its instructions to verify your email, and login.

If the email doesn't appear in your inbox, try asking your IT department to add KLASresearch.com to your company spam filter's "whitelist", and checking your email's spam folder.

Thank You! Your information was submitted successfully!

Next Steps - A KLAS representative will contact you to discuss working with KLAS, typically within 24 to 48 hours.

If you have any further questions please contact info@klasresearch.com or 1-800-920-4109.

Surprise! Looks like we already have an account for you.

An email has been sent to blah@blah.com with a link to login.

If the email doesn't appear in your inbox, try asking your IT department to add KLASresearch.com to your company spam filter's "whitelist", and checking your email's spam folder.

Thank you !

Access info about Oncology - Medical on your dashboard or bookmark under

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

Premium Reports
Subject Expert

Contact KLAS

info@klasresearch.com

KLAS - Contact KLAS
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Medical Oncology 2019
|
2019
Medical Oncology 2017
|
2017
Oncology 2016
|
2016
Oncology 2014
|
2014
Oncology 2013
|
2013
Oncology IS 2011
|
2011
The Oncology IT Balancing Act
|
2010
Oncology 2008
|
2008

Related Segments

Related Products

Related Vendors

 End chart zoom
Oncology 2012
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Oncology 2012
Pulling The Curtain Back

December 14, 2012 | Read Time: 4  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 6/13/2021 4:42:28 PM and Model.reportId = 761

Oncology has been late to the meaningful use (MU) game, but the momentum is picking up as Stage 2 rules are bearing down. Patient portals are now inevitable for providers. Altos and McKesson are leading the charge for MU, but with pressure to integrate and consolidate, those vendors are also vulnerable to replacement. Varian and Elekta, the two most prevalent vendors in the oncology IT market, have room to up their game in regard to MU.

Thank you !

Access info about Oncology - Medical on your dashboard or bookmark under

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

Healthcare Providers,
Want to see more reports?

Not a Provider, contact us for pricing details.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 6/13/2021 4:42:28 PM and Model.reportId= 761 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637497131114253266

Key Findings

oncology functionality rating

Elekta Leads in Radiation Oncology: Elekta earns the top score in radiation oncology, beating out Varian and the upcoming player BMSi. While ratings of Elekta’s individual tools do not always outperform the competition, Elekta starts on the right foot with customers by setting realistic expectations, offering solid training, and doing good implementations.

Alerts and Reporting are most Challenging Aspects of Medical Oncology: Alerts and reporting are the tools that providers are least happy with overall. All vendors struggle with alerts, but Epic, Varian, and Elekta perform below the average. Altos performs much better than the rest, but with a small sample. Reporting is also an area for improvement. For Varian and Elekta, the canned reports do not meet providers’ needs and custom reports are very difficult to use. Epic’s customized reports still need some work to be user friendly for oncology.

Varian’s Dominance in the Oncology Market Does Not Equate to Satisfaction: Varian’s competence and knowledge of oncology create high expectations that Varian does not always meet and does not make up for unresponsive service and the perception of an uninvolved executive team. The lack of camaraderie provides no cushion for when there are bumps in the road, such as issues with training and implementations.

Providers not Settled on a Vendor for Patient Portals: The market is still up in the air in regard to patient portals, with only 30% of participants reporting patient portal usage. But it is something that providers will need to address soon as MU Stage 2 ramps up. Only 10% of Elekta’s customers and just 24% of Varian’s customers interviewed indicated that they are using a patient portal. Those still looking for patient portals are looking to their current oncology IT vendor. Both Epic and Altos have a high percentage (80% and 75%, respectively) of portal clients, though those figures are based on a small sample for each.

Ability to Interface is Critical: ACO’s are getting more attention in the oncology space from providers and vendors alike. While more providers seem confident and hopeful that Varian and Elekta will be able to better integrate with the patient record, there are still challenges. On the other hand, Epic customers are frustrated that they will not be able to interface with radiation oncology systems. Altos and McKesson typically work in the ambulatory space and do not currently face the challenges of interfacing, but as clinics are absorbed by ACOs it is an issue they may need to address.

Oncology IT and Meaningful Use

satisfaction with integration to the patient chart data

Oncology providers across the board say they are planning to attest for MU, but vendors differ in their ability to partner with providers. One hundred percent of Altos customers say Altos is an excellent partner when it comes to MU because they are willing to be hands on with customers going through that process; however, that is based on a small sample. The vast majority of BMSi customers also say that BMSi is an excellent partner for MU and that BMSi is very focused on helping customers succeed. Most of McKesson’s customers reported a positive experience with MU.

Epic and Varian customers are much less inclined to say their vendors are excellent MU partners. While some Epic customers feel Epic’s MU reporting is a benefit, the system is not designed for all of the needs of oncology providers. Varian customers mentioned that the MU version of ARIA did not come out on Varian’s promised timeline, and some said that Varian seemed out of touch with their clients and what they expect in regard to MU.

Bottom Line on Vendors

vendor performance

Altos: Nimble, web-based system makes upgrades painless. Designed for medical oncology. Found in small practices or community cancer settings. Large proportion of customers attested for MU or in process. Small group using proprietary patient portal; largest patient portal adoption in the study. Rapid growth has dedicated sales and service team spread thin.

BMSi: Great functionality for radiation oncology needs. Does not have record and verify. Providers appreciate BMSi’s proactive approach in getting them through the MU process. Great service and responsiveness to needs and requests reflect the niche quality of BMSi.

Elekta: Scalable in any oncology environment. Customers span from small groups to large acute care health systems. Robust tools in both medical oncology and radiation oncology but reporting difficult to use. Those with only medical oncology are the most frustrated. Behind in patient portals. Integration improved but needs improvement on medical oncology side.

Epic: Medical oncology tools not meeting provider needs, specifically with staging and alerts. System seen as functionally immature. IT personnel like easy integration to core hospital system, but clinical end users are not happy. Integration to radiation oncology not an option. Used in acute care settings and acute care owned cancer centers and clinics.

patient portal usage

IntrinsiQ: Simple, well-designed medical oncology tools. Needs to pair with strong EMR to perform well. Scalable from small outpatient to acute care facilities. Doing relatively well with implementation, training, and contracting. Good integration double-edged sword when those having issues might choose their enterprise vendor over IntelliDose.

McKesson: Strong medical oncology tools for ambulatory and community cancer centers. No acute care offering may present problems as healthcare leans toward consolidation and ACOs. Integration needs improvement. McKesson keeping customers on track with MU. Offering a dedicated portal for oncology but still needs development. Struggling with training and implementations.

Varian: Oncology heavyweight in IT and radiation therapy equipment with good integration between those pieces if all are from Varian. Large number of clients plan to stay with Varian, despite relationship struggles. Extra charges for interfaces and upgrades. Those utilizing ARIA for MU attestation are dissatisfied with Varian’s efforts. Varian/Equicare patient portal was the most looked at, though KLAS spoke to only one live user.

 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. © 2021 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.