Thank you !

Access info about EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms on your dashboard or bookmark under

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

We are currently researching EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms.

Will you help us?

Take A Survey

Premium Reports
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts

Preferences

   Bookmark

Related Series

Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2018
|
2018
Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms KLAS-CHIME Benchmarking Report 2017
|
2017

Related Segments

Related Products

Related Vendors

Related Blogs

 End chart zoom
Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2017 Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2017
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2017
Who Is Supporting Healthcare Organizations’ Abilities to Expand Virtual Care?

author - Mark Allphin
Author
Mark Allphin
author - Jacob Jeppson
Author
Jacob Jeppson
 
October 10, 2017 | Read Time: 2  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 10/27/2021 1:18:30 PM and Model.reportId = 1161

Healthcare organizations have found that virtual care platforms (VCPs) reduce delivery costs, increase access to new patients, and allow organizations to deliver better care. While these platforms are just one aspect of the rapidly evolving telehealth market, a number of vendors now offer virtual care platforms supporting diverse visit types and use cases. Some have only a handful of live organizations today, but all are growing. Working with the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME), KLAS reached out to healthcare organizations facilitating live video visits on virtual care platforms to provide an early look at who is helping organizations expand telehealth services today.

Thank you !

Access info about EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms on your dashboard or bookmark under

(Your Products / Your Organization's Products)

We are currently researching EMR-Centric Virtual Care Platforms.

Will you help us?

Take A Survey

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 10/27/2021 1:18:30 PM and Model.reportId= 1161 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637689665577180982

market overview virtual care platforms

1. American Well and Avizia Adopted Most Broadly across Visit Types

Early research shows that healthcare organizations use VCPs for three key visit types—scheduled/patient-focused visits, on-demand/consumer-focused visits, and telespecialty consultations. Most interviewed organizations want to deepen use within their current service lines and expand their telehealth offering into additional service lines and visit types. However, to date, American Well, Avizia, and VSee are the only vendors KLAS has validated as being used for all three key visit types.

Most telehealth vendors originally built their solution for one specific visit type, rather than as an all-encompassing platform, and few are capable of supporting the expansion organizations are looking for. InTouch Health, swyMed, and Avizia began with hardware to support the secure, reliable communication needed for provider-to-provider consultations; American Well and Carena offer provider network services to support on-demand/consumer-focused visits.

what virtual care visit types have customers validated

2. With Strategic Guidance, Providers Lead While Vendors Follow

For many organizations, telehealth is a new endeavor with an uncertain ROI. Those hoping for leadership and strategic guidance from their VCP vendor often find that guidance is limited to implementing existing product functionality. Vendors are generally supportive when called upon, but customers want a more proactive approach. This is especially problematic when vendors support complex telehealth programs, as is the case with American Well, Avizia, and VSee. Epic customers describe a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves strategy largely up to customers. Vendors with the highest ratings for guidance, such as InTouch Health, TruClinic, and Zipnosis, tend to offer less complex solutions for which provider expectations for guidance are typically tied to operational support.

number of clients using single and multiple visit types

3. Integration Touted by All; Few Organizations Actually Have It

Apart from Epic, vendors have not delivered on promises of integration. Provider organizations want to be able to access EMR data from within their VCP, but interfaces are missing, and many organizations are frustrated with what it costs to achieve any sort of integration. A large number feel that integration costs are too high and that most vendors are missing standard interfaces. Unidirectional EMR integration is possible for some, but organizations say it is generally insufficient to meet their workflow needs. A single respondent from American Well and two from Avizia have achieved bidirectional integration; however, these customers say this was achieved through extensive effort by their own organizations.

integration statusvendor bottom lines

author - Alex McIntosh
Writer
Alex McIntosh
author - Jess Wallace-Simpson
Designer
Jess Wallace-Simpson
 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. © 2021 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.