Premium Reports
PatientKeeper 2013

PatientKeeper 2013
A New Take on Inpatient CPOE

| Read Time: 3 minutes

PatientKeeper offers a CPOE overlay that is used in conjunction with an existing EMR. Is this a viable option for hospitals struggling to get CPOE adoption with their current EMR solution? KLAS spoke with all six organizations using PatientKeeper CPOE as of August 2013, getting perspectives from six IT professionals/decision makers and five physicians, to find out.


Worth Knowing

Short Path to Proficiency

Initial training took physicians anywhere from 10 minutes to 4 hours depending on the physicians’ level of comfort with IT systems. It took most physicians between 2 and 4 weeks to feel fully proficient. PatientKeeper CPOE’s usability sets the system apart from other products. As a point of reference, respondents rated its ease of use 8.3 (out of 9.0), which is significantly higher than the overall ease-of-use ratings for major EMR products. This is not a direct comparison, however, as EMR ease-of-use ratings encompass all aspects of an EMR’s functionality, not just CPOE.

Hospital-Wide Deployment Takes Time

Most customers are following PatientKeeper’s prescribed approach of a phased go live, in which the full product is rolled out to select groups of physicians while working out the kinks. Two-thirds of customers using PatientKeeper have been live more than six months, yet the majority have a limited amount of their physicians using the product. Half of organizations were entering less than a third of their total orders via PatientKeeper.

Initial Success among Select EMRs

Customers’ main reason for choosing PatientKeeper CPOE was an inadequate EMR CPOE solution. Customers are using PatientKeeper in conjunction with several different EMR strategies: four are using MEDITECH (two on C/S v.5.x and two on MAGIC), one is using McKesson Horizon, and one is using a custom EMR. Respondents at these facilities rated the early performance of PatientKeeper 86.4 out of 100, higher than all EMRs except Epic, and 100% said they would buy the product again.

Not Just a Stop-Gap Solution

All customers indicated PatientKeeper CPOE was part of their long-term plans, but almost all were running a legacy EMR that will likely change at some point. A couple said they would bridge the gap by using PatientKeeper as their common CPOE solution if or when they transition from one EMR to the next. This would allow physicians to learn one system that would not change even if the underlying EMR does.


A Gap in CPOE Offerings

In the past, KLAS has published many reports dealing with CPOE. Although meaningful use has increased CPOE adoption, not all solutions are created equal. In a 2011 KLAS study, Epic and Allscripts had over 50% CPOE. Cerner and Siemens followed with 42% and 23%, respectively. Vendors like McKesson (Horizon and Paragon) and MEDITECH both had less than 20% doing CPOE.

KLAS increasingly has been asked by healthcare providers about viable alternatives to their EMR’s native CPOE offering due to usability concerns or timeline constraints. One CIO expressed, “We are in the process of installing CPOE with MEDITECH. Most of our holdup has been MEDITECH. We signed up for CPOE almost two and a half years ago, and the dates were very far out. It was frustrating that they were that far out just because MEDITECH didn’t have the implementation resources. . . . The long-term goal is to continue to grow, but we are looking at third parties to see whether they are viable solutions. Before, MEDITECH was always the solution.”

Want to see full details?

 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. © 2018 KLAS Enterprises, 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.