Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts



Related Series

Ophthalmology 2024

Related Articles

 End chart zoom
Ophthalmology 2019 Ophthalmology 2019
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Ophthalmology 2019
Which Vendors Best Meet Ophthalmology Needs?

author - Aaron Gleave
Aaron Gleave
author - Alex McIntosh
Alex McIntosh
December 17, 2019 | Read Time: 3  minutes

As the US population ages, the demand for ophthalmology treatments, therapies, and procedures is increasing, as is the number of healthcare providers who deliver these services. The field of vendors who offer EMR software for ophthalmology practices is also changing amid strategic acquisitions and mergers. This consolidation has left large numbers of clinics wondering whether their EMR will be supported long term and which vendors can best meet their needs. This report—KLAS’ first on EMR performance in the ophthalmology market—attempts to increase transparency by examining vendor performance in areas such as ease of use, reporting, and ophthalmology-specific development.

EyeMD EMR and Modernizing Medicine Deliver Well for Ophthalmology

Both EyeMD EMR Healthcare Systems and Modernizing Medicine perform very well for their ophthalmology customers, delivering a strong user experience and ophthalmology-specific workflows and functionality. EyeMD EMR Healthcare Systems customers say their solution is both intuitive and extremely customizable, leading to increased efficiency. Smooth upgrades and the ability to contact knowledgeable support personnel without having to submit a ticket or wait on hold also contribute to EyeMD EMR users’ high satisfaction. Modernizing Medicine’s solution is described as very easy to use, and customers are enthusiastic about the new technology and functionality the vendor delivers. Customers appreciate that the vendor’s development efforts are led by on-staff physicians. Updates go smoothly and bring new, valuable functionality.

overall performance score vs would you buy again1

Nextech and NextGen Healthcare: Solid Choices at a Premium

Nextech customers say their solution is very easy to use and fits intuitively into providers’ workflows. Customers of broad multispecialty vendor NextGen Healthcare have access to extensive reporting features that give them insights into their patients and practices. Both customer bases feel somewhat hindered by their vendor’s pricing structure, reporting the highest levels of nickel-and- diming. This leads to lower perceptions of value, even though customers feel the solutions themselves are stable and deliver much of the functionality they need for success.

overall product quality vs avoids nickel and diming

Customers Need More Development from Epic and Eye Care Leaders

More than 30% of Epic’s Kaleidoscope users feel that the vendor has not fulfilled promises to deliver new functionality and technology that is needed to streamline their practices—11 of the 14 interviewed customers are unsatisfied with Epic’s commitment to providing enhancements. They say focus on the product has dropped considerably, and they would like Epic’s service to return to its previous levels. Eye Care Leaders also fails to meet customers’ development expectations, though satisfaction in other areas is moderate. Over 60% of interviewed customers express dissatisfaction with the vendor’s delivery of ophthalmology-specific enhancements. Despite Eye Care Leaders’ ophthalmology focus, customers say they lack integration with key systems (e.g., practice management and imaging solutions) and often cannot generate needed reports themselves.

delivery of ophthalmology specific enhancements and strength of reporting capabilities

Buggy Upgrade Souring the Experience for Compulink Customers

More than half of Compulink Healthcare Solutions’ interviewed customers are dissatisfied overall, citing poor implementations of Compulink’s recent upgrade (version 12.1), which customers say had an unacceptable number of bugs. User ratings for Compulink are currently low in nearly all measured areas, and much of this can be traced back to customer frustrations with the recent update. Additionally, customers say that Compulink’s training is lacking, with several describing the vendor’s training videos as poorly designed or missing instruction in key areas. Those who commented on Compulink’s trainers say they were not helpful and were not able to teach in a way that set the organization up for success. 30% of interviewed customers would not choose Compulink again for their ophthalmology practices.

quality of training vs quality of implementation

"Cerner Not Suited for Ophthalmology”


Ten individual respondents (representing seven unique organizations) provided feedback on Cerner PowerChart Ambulatory’s ophthalmology performance. Seven of these individuals give the solution an F overall, and in KLAS’ 1–9 metrics, Cerner scores on average about 40% lower than the next-lowest-rated product and 55% lower than the highest-rated solution. Ophthalmologists feel that Cerner has simply “repurposed” their standard ambulatory EMR, leaving them without the tools or functionality they need to deliver appropriate care; indeed, some have reverted to paper charts. Additionally, Cerner has not responded to enhancement requests, leading nearly all interviewed customers to say they would not choose Cerner again for ophthalmology.

delivery of ophthalmology specific enhancements and strength of reporting capabilities

author - Elizabeth Pew
Elizabeth Pew
author - Jess Wallace-Simpson
Jess Wallace-Simpson
 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. © 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.