KLAS Contact
Contact KLAS
Contact KLAS
2024 BEST IN KLAS
Preferences
Related Series
Pulse Check 2019 - Epic Small Practices EMR
New Visibility into an Unexplored Market
Author
Aaron Gleave
Author
Alex McIntosh
Epic’s footprint among small practices (1–10 physicians) is extensive and growing as more of these clinics join local ACOs, affiliate with other organizations using Epic, or simply want the benefits that come with better clinical integration. Yet relatively little insight exists into how the solution performs for small practices or what successes and challenges these organizations encounter with Epic. This report is KLAS’ first attempt to shine a light on the experience of Epic users in small ambulatory settings.
Small Practices Report High Value and High Performance
Compared to most other vendors that provide EMRs to small practices, Epic stands out for the value they deliver and the solution’s overall performance. Several interviewed practices were given subsidies by their host organization for selecting Epic and are happy with the level of technology they received. Additionally, respondents report high satisfaction with the integration between their practices and the ACOs or local IDNs they are associated with. A few respondents report frustration with their host organization, but this does not diminish the value they see in Epic’s technology or their overall impressions of the vendor—nearly all plan to keep Epic long term and would choose Epic again.
Ease of Use Problematic for Small Practices Using Epic
Ease of use—which is a primary foundational need for small practices (see chart at bottom of page)—eludes most interviewed small practices using Epic. Two-thirds rate this metric a 7.0 or lower (out of 9.0), leading to Epic having one of the lowest ease-of-use ratings among all ambulatory EMR solutions. This below-average performance is due primarily to the solution’s abundant functionality, which exceeds what many small practices need. Additionally, more than one-third of respondents are unsatisfied (giving a rating of 6.0 or lower) with Epic’s ability to deliver an efficient and intuitive workflow, calling the workflow “not user friendly” or “hard to follow”; multiple respondents describe it as “cumbersome.”
Support Experience Varies Greatly Due to Community Connect Model
Respondents’ feedback on support varies greatly. Organizations that rely on their host organization for support are generally unsatisfied with the help they receive, saying they feel “trapped,” “pushed around,” or “frustrated” by the lack of attention from their host. A few are currently exploring the possibility of finding a different host that can better meet their needs. Several other organizations say they have been able to involve Epic directly in their support needs; these respondents speak very highly of the results they have achieved with Epic and of the overall support quality.
"We are at the mercy of our host organization. The support from our host organization is very poor."_____ —Owner/Physician
"We have a contact directly at Epic that we deal with for support. We call that person regularly; that person is so helpful. The contact answers our questions and fixes anything we need." —Physician
Designer
Natalie Jamison
Project Manager
Sydney Toomer
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.