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

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Nurse & Staff Scheduling 2021
|
2021
Nurse & Staff Scheduling 2018
|
2018
Staff Scheduling 2010
|
2010
Staff Scheduling 2009
|
2009
Staff and Nurse Scheduling, Market Review 2006
|
2006

Related Segments

 End chart zoom
Scheduling 2016 - Staff, Nurse, and Physician Scheduling 2016 - Staff, Nurse, and Physician
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Scheduling 2016 - Staff, Nurse, and Physician
Are Vendors Delivering Promised Technology?

author - Tanya Egbert
Author
Tanya Egbert
author - Emily Paxman
Author
Emily Paxman
 
September 8, 2016 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/7/2022 6:20:43 AM and Model.reportId = 1112

New staff and nurse scheduling technologies, like predictive scheduling, mobile tools, self-scheduling, and acuity tools, promise to help healthcare providers improve staffing efficiency. This report explores how deeply new technologies are being adopted and how well they perform and takes a first look at physician scheduling options.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/7/2022 6:20:43 AM and Model.reportId= 1112 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637612920097676389
market context what you should know

1. GE Healthcare Leads in Acute Care Scheduling Innovation

vendor progressiveness vs overall satisfaction

Adoption and satisfaction are high among GE Healthcare customers, who say communication is strong, products are functional, and development is a priority. OnShift plays only in long‐term care and is showing that vendors can drive innovation and adoption and deliver speedy development bolstered by proactive relationship building. McKesson meets basic needs, yet users describe them as lacking innovation and note that the solution doesn't integrate well with other McKesson offerings. Kronos and Cerner customers would like additional development–Kronos customers would like more communication to help encourage adoption of new technology, while Cerner customers say the product has remained stagnant since it was acquired in 2011. Limited feedback on Avantas indicates the vendor listens to customers' requests and is quick to deliver.


2. GE Healthcare, Cerner, and OnShift Stand Out for Predictive Scheduling

provider satisfaction with predictive scheduling functionality

Customers of GE ShiftSelect say the reporting allows their census data to project reliable schedules with a high degree of accuracy. GE Staffing and Scheduling customers report the deepest adoption of predictive tools thanks to the strength of the templates. Cerner customers also report high accuracy and usable templates. OnShift users describe their solution's predictive scheduling module as flexible, with easy‐to‐pull census information that can be customized. Providers using Kronos' predictive scheduling express frustration, noting that using the module is labor intensive and that the system isn't flexible enough to consistently calculate accurate future schedules.


3. OnShift Shows Mobile Can Be Done; Acute Care Focused Vendors Struggle

Adopters of OnShift's mobile tools are satisfied with the app's intuitive layout, messaging, and notifications. Cerner users report difficulty using mobile tools in browsers outside of Internet Explorer. Early mobile adopters using Kronos and GE Staffing and Scheduling say these solutions lack robust functionality and are difficult to customize. Message character limitations and an inability to accept partial shift submissions are challenges for Kronos customers, while GE Staffing and Scheduling customers note difficulty setting up staff logins.

mobile tools adoption vs provider satisfaction



4. Self-Scheduling: A High Performing Market with Several Viable Options

Providers say GE ShiftSelect, GE Staffing and Scheduling, and Cerner provide flexible self‐scheduling with customizable rules. GE ShiftSelect customers say the web‐based architecture is flexible and easy to use. Cerner and GE Staffing and Scheduling customers say self‐scheduling tools are reliable and simple to navigate. Kronos, McKesson, and OnShift meet most self‐scheduling needs, though improvements are needed. Providers with Kronos say an added focus on training could improve usability. McKesson and OnShift customers would like additional functionality and customization for their modules. In limited data Avantas customers report a strong ability to balance and update schedules.

provider satisfaction with self scheduling functionality





Providers Say Acuity Functionality Lags

Providers say the acuity functionality from their scheduling vendors lags behind what EMR vendors offer, resulting in low adoption. Only Cerner and Kronos stand out for adoption. Cerner customers say the acuity piece integrates well with their EMR platforms, and Kronos customers report that while the tools were initially useful, little has been done to develop them further.


5. Physician Scheduling: Providers Satisfied with Strong Options

Providers are satisfied with their physician scheduling solutions, though each has different strengths. Lightning Bolt users report robust functionality and responsive, knowledgeable support. QGenda users receive regular contact and say their solution is flexible and has an intuitive mobile app. OpenTempo users receive strong support and describe their system as adaptable, with powerful setting controls and formulating rules for scheduling parameters. Limited Intrigma data shows functionality and usability as strengths.

overall satisfaction physician scheduling
 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. © 2022 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.

Related Segments