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



Related Series

Quality Management 2019
Quality, Patient Safety, and Risk Management 2017
Quality Management 2014
Quality Management 2013
Patient Safety Report 2005

 End chart zoom
Quality Management 2021 Quality Management 2021
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Quality Management 2021
Progress and Innovations

author - Ryan Pretnik
Ryan Pretnik
author - Jennifer Hickenlooper
Jennifer Hickenlooper
January 28, 2021 | Read Time: 7  minutes

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp relief the need for quality management innovations, especially around patient safety and risk. Previous KLAS research showed many vendors had grown stagnant in their tool development. This study draws on insights from general users and advanced users to show how vendors are innovating in the market and helping provider organizations advance their quality management efforts. For the purposes of this research, quality management includes three areas: (1) quality and regulatory reporting, (2) performance improvement and benchmarking, and (3) patient safety and risk.


Report Focus & Sample

This report draws on conversations with two groups of healthcare organizations using quality management solutions: (1) a small sample of vendors’ most advanced users and (2) users from vendors’ general customer bases.

Insights from advanced users are meant to help readers understand recent innovations in the quality management market, what outcomes advanced users are currently achieving, and where the market is headed next. Such data should not be interpreted as a comprehensive view of customer satisfaction or adoption.

Interviews with vendors’ general customer bases offer a broader picture of customer satisfaction. The insights in this report are focused on vendors’ abilities to drive tangible outcomes and value, provide functionality that meets clients’ needs, and deliver new technology.

What Are “Advanced Users” in Quality Management? 

For the purposes of this report, advanced users are organizations using a vendor’s most innovative technology in the most advanced ways in pursuit of positive quality and financial outcomes. In nearly all cases, vendors shared with KLAS a short list of their most advanced users. The exception is IBM Watson Health, who declined to share a list of advanced users with KLAS; using existing market knowledge and contacts, KLAS reached out to highly satisfied IBM quality management customers to get their insights on product innovations and outcomes achieved. For each vendor, at least three advanced-user organizations were interviewed.

The Quality Management Umbrella

Currently, KLAS combines three types of solutions under quality management:

  • Quality and Regulatory Reporting: Solutions that fulfill various needs for quality management, such as reporting on regulatory requirements (e.g., core measures, abstracted measures).
  • Performance Improvement and Benchmarking: Solutions that provide external benchmarking information on quality metrics and/or quality monitoring and reporting.
  • Patient Safety and Risk: Solutions with capabilities for risk management, patient safety, and compliance management to help give healthcare organizations a clear view and understanding of risk initiatives while increasing quality of care.
quality management umbrella

The Evolving Quality Management Market

Historically, quality management solutions were very manual and passive. Today, these solutions are starting to become more interactive and predictive. The graphic below shows the direction in which vendors are trending with various aspects of quality management.

evolving quality management market
what do vendors do today and how are they driving innovations

Conduent General Customer Base Reports Functionality Gaps That Hinder Outcomes; IBM Stagnant

Customers of Conduent, who covers all three areas of quality management, report the vendor has moved away from their previously go-forward Juvo platform and returned focus to developing the Midas software. Provider organizations are generally dissatisfied with the current functionality, and many say Conduent does not always follow through on promises about product development timelines. Several respondents are hopeful the shift in focus back to Midas+ will improve the technology. Organizations using IBM Watson Health (limited data) are frustrated by a lack of product innovation; many say they feel forgotten by the vendor, and about one-third of respondents say they would not buy the product again.

product has needed functionality vs would you buy again

Medisolv Updates & Proactivity Drive Outcomes; Nuance Clients Satisfied, though See Less Innovation

General customers of Medisolv receive frequent product updates that keep them up to date with core measures and help them stay on top of quality metrics. Customers also say Medisolv does a great job of proactively communicating what changes are coming and when. Advanced users report the dashboards lead to improved quality metrics in the organization and save staff time because of the ability to drill down into data and get real-time insights. Nuance customers are highly satisfied with the product; in particular, the vendor’s training helps staff quickly adopt and become proficient with new functionality. Innovations reported by advanced users are fairly basic—namely, frequent updates regarding new core measures. Based on KLAS’ Decision Insights data, Nuance’s energy in the market is low.

Premier, Vizient Drive Outcomes for Advanced Users; For General Users, Premier’s Cost Inhibits New Technology Adoption, Vizient Cumbersome

delivery of new technologyPremier advanced users report real-time data and the ability to benchmark with outside organizations, leading these organizations to improve quality metrics like mortality rates and readmissions and automate some staff processes. Among the broader customer base, many lack real-time data, and some are concerned about the cost of implementing and using new technology from Premier. Advanced users of Vizient also share that the vendor’s benchmarking is transparent and allows for comparison to peer hospitals, leading to improved patient outcomes and quality metrics. Some in the general customer base feel the tool can be cumbersome and difficult to use because of how manual it is and how long it takes to create reports.

RLDatix M&A Activity Has Customers Uncertain but Hopeful

RLDatix was formed from the merger of RL Solutions and Datix in 2018, and they have since acquired Quantros’ patient safety and risk tools as well as Verge Health (the latter measured separately). While RLDatix offers multiple products (all combined in this research), the RL Solutions product (RL6) is their primary solution. Amid this M&A activity, many interviewed customers are uncertain about the future and would like more proactive communication from vendor executives, including about their road map. Still, most are hopeful the merger and acquisition will provide positive opportunities. Advanced users share that analytics and customization—mainly built or driven by the organization rather than the vendor—have given them improved visibility and accuracy. Verge Health customers tend to be satisfied overall. Smaller to midsize customers appreciate the vendor’s integrated platform approach. Larger organizations feel the solution needs further enhancements, and they say Verge is working on updates to resolve these issues.

quality management outcomes

Advanced Users See Initial Positive Outcomes from Riskonnect, Origami Risk, VigiLanz

Organizations using Riskonnect, Origami Risk, or VigiLanz (the latter two newer entrants) report early, positive innovations and outcomes. Both advanced and general users of Riskonnect (limited data) say the software is robust for their needs and customizable. A few would like Riskonnect to be more proactive in providing service and in following through on promises. Origami Risk and VigiLanz are measured through interviews with advanced users only; notably, these users comprise a significant portion of each vendor’s small customer base. Origami Risk drives innovations like advancements in reporting, dashboards that have improved prescribing processes and staff efficiency, and strong integration. Some mention that the adverse-event tracking and the tools for Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) communication processes have improved their organization’s ability to be up front and honest with patients’ family members. Interviewed VigiLanz respondents report the safety module’s analytics and real-time reporting have given organization leadership better visibility, improved follow-up and documentation, and improved root-cause analysis and event resolution.

Quality Management and COVID-19

All measured vendors receive high marks from their general customers for support during COVID-19. Both Medisolv and Nuance stand out for quickly updating their software to include COVID-19 metrics, allowing organizations to better track what was happening and make decisions in response.

About This Report

Each year, KLAS interviews thousands of healthcare professionals about the IT products and services their organizations use. These interviews are conducted using a standard quantitative evaluation, and the scores and commentary collected are shared online in real time so that other providers and IT professionals can benefit from their peers’ experiences. To enable readers to more quickly understand high-level differences in vendor performance and give better context as to how each product compares to other offerings in the market, KLAS has organized the questions from the standard evaluation into six customer experience pillars—culture, loyalty, operations, product, relationship, and value.

customer experience pillars

To supplement the data gathered with this standard evaluation, KLAS also creates various 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 both evaluation types and was collected over the last 12 months; the number of unique responding organizations for each evaluation type is given in the chart below.

about this report

What Does “Limited Data” Mean?

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 vary from question to question and may not reach KLAS’ required threshold of 15 unique respondents. When a vendor’s sample size for a particular question is less than 15, the score for that question is marked with an asterisk (*) or otherwise 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.

author - Amanda Wind Smith
Amanda Wind Smith
author - Natalie Jamison
Project Manager
Natalie Jamison
 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.