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



Related Series

 No Related Series

Related Segments

Related Articles

 End chart zoom
Sepsis 2017 Sepsis 2017
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Sepsis 2017
Which Vendors Can Help?

author - Jonathan Christensen
Jonathan Christensen
April 25, 2017 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 11/30/2023 4:14:55 AM and Model.reportId = 1172

Sepsis is not a new concern for healthcare providers, but many organizations hope to leverage the learning of early pioneers who have automated the detection of both septic and pre-septic patients. For this report, KLAS interviewed organizations using vendor-supplied sepsis technology and services and also asked those yet to implement what their plans are for the future and how focused their EMR and surveillance/infection control vendors are on improving sepsis outcomes. While this report examines provider use of vendor-supplied sepsis technology and services, other providers may address sepsis more broadly via the automation of infection control.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 11/30/2023 4:14:55 AM and Model.reportId= 1172 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637529109134754013

1. Cerner and Epic Take Very Different Approaches; Epic’s Approach Requires More Customer Effort

mentions of significant effort by cerner and epic customers

Adoption of Cerner’s and Epic’s sepsis technology is higher than adoption of all other solutions combined. Though each vendor is unique in their approach, customers of both report positive outcomes, including reductions in mortality rates. Cerner’s always-on algorithm and related alerting are easily deployed and available for free to Cerner’s EMR customers; an advanced analytics and dashboard module is available for a fee. Epic’s Best Practice Alerts are available at no charge to Epic’s EMR customers, but those live with, implementing, or actively considering use of Epic’s sepsis functionality report that implementing and integrating it into current workflows requires significant in-house effort. Use of solutions from other EMR vendors lags. Like Cerner, MEDITECH recently developed a solution specifically for sepsis. Customer awareness and adoption of the system—built on the 6.x platform—are still relatively low. Allscripts offers a toolkit along with support and guidance to providers that seek to utilize their EMR functionality to configure sepsis screening and alerting.

2. Wolters Kluwer, VigiLanz Fill in EMR Gaps; Health Catalyst, LogicStream Promote Compliance

As most EMR vendors lack easily deployed, widely adopted sepsis modules, some providers look to other sources to address their sepsis technology needs. Infection control and surveillance vendors are most frequently considered. Wolters Kluwer and VigiLanz offer dedicated modules, and customers feel they are more focused on sepsis prevention than other traditional infection control/surveillance vendors. Very prominent infection control and surveillance vendors BD and Premier do not have dedicated sepsis solutions and are not perceived as focused on sepsis, though a few providers have customized Premier’s system to address their sepsis needs. Iatric has few surveillance customers and offers a dedicated sepsis module primarily targeted at MEDITECH customers. Other less common approaches to tackling sepsis include analytics and sepsis-specific platforms. Whereas most vendors focus on real-time alerting, Health Catalyst and LogicStream leverage their analytics to provide retrospective views of clinical effectiveness and spur effective end-user change management. Customers appreciate Health Catalyst’s strong partnership and focus on customer success, while LogicStream clients extoll the flexibility and usefulness of their reports.

vendor solution landscape

3. Providers Consider EMR Vendors Most Focused

Providers would prefer to rely on their EMR vendor for sepsis technology where possible. Epic’s strategy around communicating clinical outcomes and their inclusion of sepsis in their Honor Roll program lead a majority of customers to perceive Epic as somewhat focused on sepsis. Some customers who have evaluated Epic’s approach more closely have decided to look at more easily deployable solutions. Cerner is perceived as slightly less focused overall. However, due to Cerner president Neal Patterson’s personal push for adoption coupled with the system’s relative ease of deployment, relatively more Cerner customers feel the vendor is very focused on sepsis. Customers say McKesson’s focus is elsewhere. Most traditional market mainstays in infection control and surveillance have not leveraged their market presence or technology to help more than a few customers combat sepsis, and few providers look to other third-party vendors.

perceived vendor focus on sepsis technology development

4. Early Efforts Produce Promising Outcomes

This report is not intended to compare vendors against one another with regard to achieved outcomes since many providers can’t definitively measure their system’s impact on outcomes. Broadly, however, over two-thirds of providers report positive outcomes.

an early look at vendor functionality and sepsis outcomes

author - Natalie Jamison
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. © 2023 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.