Premium Reports
Patient Flow 2017

Patient Flow 2017
No Reason to Wait

Authored by: | Read Time: 4 minutes

Managing the flow of patients in an acute care setting is one of the more complicated challenges confronting providers today. With multiple robust and improving patient flow solutions available, there is no reason for healthcare organizations to put off optimizing their patient flow performance.


1. TeleTracking Leads Every Vendor in Outcomes; Epic Improves Functionality and Depth of Solution


There are two clear leaders in patient flow. TeleTracking continues to help providers increase capacity and reduce wait times better than any other vendor. TeleTracking leads not only in overall satisfaction but in satisfaction of the operational and clinical staff, who rely most heavily on patient flow functionality. Epic’s functionality has improved in recent years, and customers are excited about perceived cost savings and future improvements. Providers who have compared the solutions report that Epic’s solution is still immature and is more difficult to use than TeleTracking’s. Other options include McKesson and Cerner. Providers appreciate the McKesson solution’s color gradients and its ability to provide high visibility around internal operations, but poor analytics and sometimes poor integration lead to less-than-full adoption and falling satisfaction scores. According to limited data, Cerner customers struggle with weak reporting and analytics tools, bugs, and data-integrity concerns.



2. TeleTracking Combines Ease of Use with Strong Analytics and Reporting


TeleTracking customers who have purchased custom reporting functionality are highly satisfied, and many are excited about the future of the solution. Standard reports can _ be limited. Comparatively high customer satisfaction among Epic customers comes from highly specialized analytics _ departments proficient in leveraging Epic's Data Warehouse tools. Inconsistently implemented dashboards and varying accuracy frustrate clinical respondents and have a negative impact on Epic’s ability to facilitate higher capacity and reduce wait times. McKesson users find their dashboards easy to navigate, but respondents struggle enough with the solution’s analytics that many said they are not using them or are unable to access the data.


3. Operational/Clinical Respondents Struggle with Epic’s Discharge Functionality


Operational and clinical respondents are consistently less satisfied than their IT counterparts with Epic Grand Central, most notably with the solution’s analytics and discharge-planning functionality. Multiple Epic customers complained of their inability to differentiate between pending and completed discharges, though they spoke positively about the direction of the software’s development. Providers extolled the functionality, flexibility, and clarity of TeleTracking’s discharge milestones, which allow nurses and care managers to tag pending discharges, clearly see holds and delays, and plan follow-up steps in advance. Cerner’s most recent update has addressed some of the challenges with their discharge-planning tool, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Limited data indicates customers who have put in the most custom work tend to be the ones most satisfied with the functionality. Although McKesson’s discharge-planning functionality was highly rated, nearly half of McKesson respondents are not using it.


4. Epic and TeleTracking Neck and Neck in Meeting Integration Needs


Epic customers report that Grand Central integrates with Epic’s ClinDoc and case management functionality. As providers become familiar with this framework, they begin to appreciate “the whole perspective and benefit of patient flow.” Others complain of a silo effect that impedes effective discharge planning and obstructs visibility when trying to view patients within other departments. Many respondents commented on TeleTracking’s eagerness to support full interoperability with EMR platforms, and a majority of customers using TeleTracking feel the solution’s state-of-the-art functionality is worth the additional time and resources required to implement a non-enterprise solution. McKesson’s interfacing support has improved, though over two-thirds of respondents using McKesson’s patient flow functionality are Horizon or Paragon customers.


5. Central Logic and TeleTracking Transfer Centers Contribute to ROI


Every respondent using TeleTracking’s transfer center reported a positive impact on revenue and/or patient placement. Providers universally praised available reporting tools, and the solution’s automatic discharge and transport features are allowing organizations to decrease manual input and further reduce patient wait times. Providers are pleased with Central Logic’s ability to integrate, and three-quarters of respondents reported a positive impact. The solution’s robust reporting facilitates quick and easy analysis of revenue margins, patient diagnoses, and physician acceptance rates. Epic reports they have developed and released a transfer module available in the 2017 upgrade; a few providers mentioned plans to replace Central Logic when an Epic alternative is available. KLAS was unable to validate customers using Cerner for transfer center.

Key Topics

  1. TeleTracking Leads Every Vendor in Outcomes; Epic Improves Functionality and Depth of Solution
  2. TeleTracking Combines Ease of Use with Strong Analytics and Reporting
  3. Operational/Clinical Respondents Struggle with Epic’s Discharge Functionality
  4. Epic and TeleTracking Neck and Neck in Meeting Integration Needs
  5. Central Logic and TeleTracking Transfer Centers Contribute to ROI


 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. © 2019 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.