KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2025 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Related Segments
Patient Engagement Platforms 2020
Which Vendor Can Be Your One-Stop Shop?
Author
Adam Cherrington
Author
Madison Moniz
Author
Dan Czech
Provider organizations have begun to consistently ask who, if anyone, can be a one-stop shop for patient engagement—allowing organizations to consolidate vendors and create a unified patient experience. Directed by the voices of provider and vendor executives, along with patients themselves, KLAS has helped the industry define “patient engagement platforms” through a series of reports and summits. This report is a culmination of those efforts, intended to help provider organizations understand who they can turn to for all (or almost all) of their patient engagement needs. Included in this study are insights from 153 of the broadest-adopting customers across 33 vendors.
ADVANCED USER INSIGHTS REPORTS
PATIENT ENGAGEMENT PLATFORMS
Advanced User Insights reports are designed to help readers understand what is possible at the cutting edge of a given technology. Most of the data in these reports is based on feedback from a small sample of vendors’ most advanced users and should therefore not be interpreted as a comprehensive view of customer satisfaction or adoption.
What constitutes an “advanced user” varies somewhat from market to market and may include organizations who have deeply adopted a vendor’s technology, organizations who have adopted a broad range of functionality from a single vendor, or organizations who are in some other way using a technology beyond how it is typically deployed by more standard users.
Defining “Advanced Users” in Patient Engagement
For the purposes of this report, advanced users are those who have adopted a broad range of patient engagement products, modules, or tools from a single vendor. To validate adoption, KLAS invited the 33 vendors who reported offering at least 50% of the patient engagement capabilities measured in KLAS’ 2019 Patient Engagement Ecosystem Study to share 10 or more of their broadest-adopting customers (i.e., those live with the most vendor-reported capabilities). KLAS then interviewed, typically, 3–6 customers from each vendor’s list to validate what capabilities they use from their vendor and how deeply patients are adopting those capabilities. Reported capabilities are based on those that vendors claimed in the 2019 Patient Engagement Ecosystem report—some vendors may have since released or shuttered certain capabilities, but to maintain an even baseline, those recent changes are not reflected in this report (they may be noted in the Vendor Insights section where appropriate).
The graphic below details the components of a one-stop-shop patient engagement platform, based on two years of insights from patients, providers, and vendors. Today, most platforms consist of multiple integrated systems; the platform of the future will create a consolidated patient and provider experience. For more on this model’s creation and definitions of platform capabilities, see the Expanded Insights section.
Epic Rises above the Rest, as EMR-Centric Platforms Most Closely Approach a One-Stop Shop; Across Vendors, Patient Adoption Limited
EMR-centric offerings, often built around the patient portal, are often deployed broadly and validated for nearly all capabilities. Online bill pay and prescription-refill requests are mainly driven by the portal. Provider search/matching and real-time performance improvement are common gaps. Adoption of EMR-centric platforms is often limited by portal adoption, hampering the ability to engage all patients; as a result, the platforms are often augmented by other solutions that meet niche needs or improve the patient experience. Allscripts’ and NextGen’s offerings, while used primarily by their respective EMR customers, are vendor agnostic.
Nearly all Epic respondents—among the largest, most complex organizations surveyed—use the vendor for all capabilities, resulting in industry-leading adoption. Provider messaging and pre-visit communication are most deeply adopted. Epic’s tools are described as cohesive for patients and as driving real outcomes. Further adoption is limited by patients’ ability and willingness to use the portal. Customers of Cerner or MEDITECH report capable tools hampered by patient portal adoption struggles. Interviewed clients do not see the vendors as patient engagement leaders; MEDITECH customers report some recent improvement. Allscripts’ FollowMyHealth suite, augmented by the purchase of HealthGrid, is used for many capabilities. Patient adoption of most is light. athenahealth clients report the vendor has broadened their offering with additional capabilities in recent years. Extra costs for new features create some dissatisfaction. Greenway Health respondents say vendor-promised functionality hasn’t been delivered. Today, the solution is not flexible enough to meet interviewed clients’ needs. NextGen Healthcare’s initial struggles after their Medfusion acquisition are being resolved, and customers feel NextGen is headed in the right direction. eClinicalWorks customers, who can be slow to adopt, usually have access to needed capabilities. The eCW patient portal is seen as a strength.
With Differing Approaches, Luma Health, Twistle, Phreesia, and GetWellNetwork Stretch beyond Initial Niche
Several non-EMR vendors stand out for making gains toward an end-to-end platform. Luma Health, initially focused on strong patient communication for ambulatory practices, has quickly deployed telehealth capabilities in response to COVID-19. Customers say Luma is a strong partner with an offering that meets or exceeds their expectations for a one-stop shop. Twistle, originally focused on pre- and post-op communication and education, creates pathways for patients and open lines of post-discharge patient/provider communication. Customers report great outcomes and see Twistle as a true, innovative partner. Phreesia has mastered the pre-visit experience with their patient intake management tools, which enable smooth scheduling and check-in, increase collections, and facilitate pre-visit communication with patients. Customers praise COVID-19 protocols that Phreesia developed on the fly. GetWellNetwork customers like the vendor’s product road map and broader, unifying strategy as the vendor works to combine their core IPS (Inpatient) and rounding (Rounds+) capabilities with pre-and post-visit communication and guidance (Loop) into one unified offering. Limited data on Bridge (patient portal–centric) shows they meet expectations. All respondents use provider messaging and prescription-refill requests; client-validated adoption is more limited than vendor-reported capabilities.
Despite Claims of Broad Platforms, Orca, SONIFI, and WELL Remain More Narrowly Used
In the 2019 Patient Engagement Ecosystem report, KLAS invited vendors to report their solutions’ capabilities, and many shared a broad set of capabilities. However, organizations often still leverage vendors in very specific ways—either to augment other solutions or because they feel other vendors are better positioned to meet certain needs. Orca Health, who reports nearly all capabilities, is used mainly by interviewed clients for educational content around orthopedic procedures. SONIFI Health acknowledges several of their reported capabilities are available but have no live users; interviewed deep adopters rarely use SONIFI outside of inpatient, in-room capabilities (such as delivery of educational content). Additionally, SONIFI has released a patient portal for delivering educational content post-discharge, which KLAS will continue to validate. WELL Health, reporting a full set of capabilities but validated in use for far fewer, meets customer expectations well. Respondents are beginning to expand adopted capabilities after initially implementing WELL Health’s strong patient communication tools.
Communication Capabilities Most Likely to Be Adopted; Jellyfish, SR Health, Relatient, and PerfectServe Stand Out
Communication capabilities are the foundation of engaging patients in their care and—in the form of pre-and post-visit communication, education delivery, and provider-patient messaging—the most commonly adopted from measured vendors. These capabilities are core competencies for Jellyfish Health, SR Health, Relatient, and PerfectServe. Jellyfish Health aims to support the pre-visit patient experience, allowing patients to schedule a visit, fill out forms, and see whether their doctor is running on time. SR Health has expanded their ambulatory offering in recent years, though clients still primarily view the solution as a tool for appointment reminders and two-way texting. SR Health released telehealth capabilities during COVID-19, but no interviewed customers have adopted them. Relatient’s end-to-end communication tool aims to engage patients from self-scheduling (capability acquired from Everseat) through post-visit communication and bill pay. Respondents say the vendor’s Health Campaigns in particular drive value. PerfectServe’s secure communications background (initially provider-to-provider) extends well to patient engagement; they have expanded capabilities through acquisitions of CareWire (mostly ambulatory) and Telmediq. The deepest adoption is focused on pre-and post-visit communication.
Note: The Executive Insights section of this report focuses on vendors that stand out positively or were validated for far less than they self-reported. All measured vendors are covered in depth in the Expanded Insights and Vendor Insights sections—explore these sections to gain deeper insights on CipherHealth, DocASAP, eVideon, Mend, pCare, RevSpring, and Vocera, in addition to the vendors already mentioned in the paragraphs and pages above.
A Note about Telehealth
Unsurprisingly, telehealth usage has grown exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic. While most organizations interviewed for this study turned to third-party tools, vendors such as Luma Health, Mend, and SR Health, along with core EMR vendors, were able to quickly release telehealth offerings to the market. Validations remain light (or have yet to come in SR Health’s case), but adoption is expected to increase over time. Phreesia has also introduced new telehealth workflows for check-in. For an in-depth look at telehealth software performance, see KLAS’ 2020 Telehealth report.
Patient Engagement Performance
In addition to delivering a breadth of capabilities, vendors must also perform well for their customers. While the scale of this report precludes in-depth analysis of every patient engagement vendor’s performance, the chart below offers a high-level view—through overall performance scores—of the vendors currently measured by KLAS. In general, vendors who focus on fewer capabilities are able to consistently deliver a positive customer experience, while vendors who deliver many capabilities struggle to maintain the same consistency. Additional performance insights can be found on KLAS’ website, and future research will delve into vendor performance in specific areas of patient engagement.
What's Next?
- Continued measurement of the patient voice; deep dives into vendor performance in high-energy areas
- 2021 report on the patient engagement ecosystem
What is "Limited Data"?
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 not reach KLAS’ required threshold of 15 unique respondents. When a vendor’s sample size is less than 15, their score is 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.
About This Report
Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT products and services their organizations use. Two types of interviews are conducted: (1) standard quantitative evaluations, from which scores and commentary collected are shared in reports like this one and online in real time so that other providers and IT professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences, and (2) 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 supplemental evaluations. Interviewed organizations represent a subset of the general customer base—specifically, those who have most broadly adopted capabilities from their patient engagement vendor. For more details on KLAS’ research methodology for this report, see the Expanded Insights section.
The number of unique responding organizations for each vendor is given in the chart to the right.
Note: Some organizations may have rated more than one product.
Note: Change Healthcare and IBM Watson Health declined to provide lists of their broadest-adopting customers for this report, and KLAS did not have other, previously provided access to customers that could easily speak to vendor-reported patient engagement capabilities. As a result, these vendors are not measured in this report.
† For KLAS’ 2019 Patient Engagement Ecosystem study, eClinicalWorks declined to report what capabilities they offer. In lieu of this participation, KLAS gleaned insights on vendor-reported capabilities from eClinicalWorks' website.
Writer
Amanda Wind
Designer
Madison Moniz
Project Manager
Mary Brown
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. © 2025 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.