Thank you !

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

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

We are currently researching Oncology - Medical.

Will you help us?

Take A Survey

Premium Reports
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Medical Oncology 2019
|
2019
Medical Oncology 2017
|
2017
Oncology 2014
|
2014
Oncology 2013
|
2013
Oncology 2012
|
2012
Oncology IS 2011
|
2011
The Oncology IT Balancing Act
|
2010
Oncology 2008
|
2008

Related Segments

Related Products

Related Vendors

 End chart zoom
Oncology 2016 Oncology 2016
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Oncology 2016
Navigating the Oncology IT Road Map

author - Monique Rasband
Author
Monique Rasband
author - Emily Paxman
Author
Emily Paxman
 
April 26, 2016 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 10/27/2021 1:48:09 PM and Model.reportId = 1098

The oncology IT landscape has shifted dramatically in the last two years. Varian’s announcement that they will no longer offer ARIA for medical oncology but will partner with Flatiron for OncoEMR has providers beginning to weigh their options. Additionally, as Cerner and Epic try to compete with best-of-breed offerings from Elekta, McKesson, and now Flatiron, providers wonder whether these vendors have viable options. This report looks at providers’ plans for the future as well as the vendor strengths and weaknesses that potential customers need to be aware of.

Thank you !

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

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

We are currently researching Oncology - Medical.

Will you help us?

Take A Survey

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 10/27/2021 1:48:09 PM and Model.reportId= 1098 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637406508799568626

1. ONLY HALF OF VARIAN'S MEDICAL ONCOLOGY CUSTOMERS PLAN TO MOVE TO FLATIRON

Varian customers who plan to move to Flatiron are doing so largely due to Varian’s recommendation, though few are enthusiastic about the change. Amid concerns about Flatiron’s ability to scale and deliver strong functionality and good interfaces, other customers are weighing their options. While many would like to move to their enterprise EMR vendor’s solution in the future, some feel the functionality of these systems lags behind, leaving around one-third unsure of where to go. Though Varian announced their decision nearly a year ago, multiple providers interviewed were unaware of Varian’s alliance with Flatiron and how it could impact their oncology systems.

varian customers future plans for medical oncology

2. CUSTOMERS QUESTION FLATIRON'S ABILITY TO HANDLE GROWING CUSTOMER BASE

Several Altos customers acquired by Flatiron say that the level of service and support they receive dropped considerably postacquisition, and most say their current relationship is poor. Providers state that Flatiron’s support is unresponsive, the future road map is not clearly communicated, and promises of improved functionality and vendor involvement are unfulfilled. Some providers are concerned that Flatiron does not have the resources to support both them and the large number of Varian customers who could potentially be migrating to Flatiron, and they fear support and communication may decline even further.

strength of relationship with customers

3. MCKESSON'S FUNCTIONALITY AND INTEGRATION LEAD THE MEDICAL ONCOLOGY MARKET

Providers say McKesson’s acquired solution from US Oncology is highly usable, has a comparatively short learning curve, and provides cutting-edge functionality. Early adopters of the newest release say integration and functionality have improved. Elekta customers report that the functionality meets most needs, though integration is expensive and can be complex; providers also say the support’s response time is an area for improvement. Flatiron users feel the functionality is adequate, but upgrade bugs often render certain functionality unusable and complicate already challenging interfaces.

how do vendors perform in key areas

4. EPIC'S SYSTEM MATURING TO MEET NEEDS; CERNER STILL BEHIND

Customers consider Epic a partner and say the vendor communicates their vision well. Usability and functionality challenges remain, though long-time users are pleased with Epic’s consistent improvement in these areas and feel the system is now mature enough to meet most needs. Cerner users say their system has a steep learning curve and that Cerner is reluctant to interface with third-party systems. Functionality gaps and a complex workflow remain concerns for Cerner users, though recent improvements and integration with other Cerner systems have helped drive adoption; however, several providers say that the system is not yet mature enough for widespread adoption.

5. ELEKTA THE ONLY VENDOR TO OFFER THEIR OWN MEDICAL AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY SYSTEMS

The only vendor to offer their own medical and radiation oncology systems going forward, Elekta is praised for their customizable workflow, simple-to-build interfaces, and deep knowledge of oncology. Support is a challenge for many providers, who say Elekta’s support lacks knowledge and has variable response times. Providers using Varian for radiation oncology feel the functionality is strong and that Varian is committed to ongoing radiation oncology development. Varian customers report integration challenges, particularly with Elekta and Epic around medical oncology.

author - Natalie Jamison
Designer
Natalie Jamison
 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.