KLAS: Are EDIS living up to expectations?
Eighty-three percent of more than 500 providers interviewed plan to utilize their emergency department information systems (EDIS) to help them attest for Stage I meaningful use, according to a new report from market researcher KLAS.
However, only a third of them noted their vendor is ready, noting a variety of functionality gaps including medication reconciliation, reporting and computerized physician order entry (CPOE). All EDIS vendors indicated they are focused on meeting provider needs, but clients report variable progress across the vendor landscape, the Orem, Utah-based KLAS stated.
“While 50 percent of Epic, Cerner and Medhost customers report being ready, two-thirds of McKesson, Meditech and Picis customers mention one or more gaps that need to be addressed in their quest to attest,” the report, titled “EDIS 2011: Delivering on Great Expectations,” stated.
Actually being able to demonstrate meaningful use involves a combination of robust clinical tools that rely on integration, the report stated. "As a result, providers are choosing one of two EDIS paths-while hoping to end up at the same destination."
Enterprise tool users cherish their integration and expect their vendors to gain clinical functionality, in much the same way that standalone users cling to their custom functionality and expect their vendors to be able to deliver the level of integration that they require to effectively meet current and anticipated meaningful use requirements, KLAS stated. According to the report, Epic leads the way in delivering deep integration and clinical capability while McKesson struggles to deliver integrated functionality.
In addition to enhancing care and the communication about that care, providers are looking to their EDIS technologies to improve ED efficiency, KLAS reported. The ED often functions as a key admission point in a hospital, inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the ED can have a longer-term impact both operationally and financially.
Some EDIS tools (Wellsoft, I-System and EmpowerSystems) are reportedly more effective in improving ED efficiency while McKesson, Meditech and Cerner were mentioned most often as hampering ED workflow, the report found.
While the standalone/enterprise EDIS distinctions are still prevalent, there is a growing sense that the term "best of breed" should be applied to the best EDIS system(s), regardless of origin, according to the market researcher. The "best" being defined as the EDIS tools that are delivering on provider expectations by helping them demonstrate meaningful use, expanding their integrated clinical capabilities and improving physician efficiency in the ED.
“The ideal EDIS delivers functionality in concert with expanding clinician needs; provides integration that satisfies physicians, staff members and IT objectives; and leverages its connectivity to address meaningful use criteria, all while recognizing the expanding role of the ED in the organization,” the report concluded. “Every vendor in this study excels in one or more of those areas, but each of them has opportunities to improve as the vendor strives to deliver on provider expectations.”
However, only a third of them noted their vendor is ready, noting a variety of functionality gaps including medication reconciliation, reporting and computerized physician order entry (CPOE). All EDIS vendors indicated they are focused on meeting provider needs, but clients report variable progress across the vendor landscape, the Orem, Utah-based KLAS stated.
“While 50 percent of Epic, Cerner and Medhost customers report being ready, two-thirds of McKesson, Meditech and Picis customers mention one or more gaps that need to be addressed in their quest to attest,” the report, titled “EDIS 2011: Delivering on Great Expectations,” stated.
Actually being able to demonstrate meaningful use involves a combination of robust clinical tools that rely on integration, the report stated. "As a result, providers are choosing one of two EDIS paths-while hoping to end up at the same destination."
Enterprise tool users cherish their integration and expect their vendors to gain clinical functionality, in much the same way that standalone users cling to their custom functionality and expect their vendors to be able to deliver the level of integration that they require to effectively meet current and anticipated meaningful use requirements, KLAS stated. According to the report, Epic leads the way in delivering deep integration and clinical capability while McKesson struggles to deliver integrated functionality.
In addition to enhancing care and the communication about that care, providers are looking to their EDIS technologies to improve ED efficiency, KLAS reported. The ED often functions as a key admission point in a hospital, inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the ED can have a longer-term impact both operationally and financially.
Some EDIS tools (Wellsoft, I-System and EmpowerSystems) are reportedly more effective in improving ED efficiency while McKesson, Meditech and Cerner were mentioned most often as hampering ED workflow, the report found.
While the standalone/enterprise EDIS distinctions are still prevalent, there is a growing sense that the term "best of breed" should be applied to the best EDIS system(s), regardless of origin, according to the market researcher. The "best" being defined as the EDIS tools that are delivering on provider expectations by helping them demonstrate meaningful use, expanding their integrated clinical capabilities and improving physician efficiency in the ED.
“The ideal EDIS delivers functionality in concert with expanding clinician needs; provides integration that satisfies physicians, staff members and IT objectives; and leverages its connectivity to address meaningful use criteria, all while recognizing the expanding role of the ED in the organization,” the report concluded. “Every vendor in this study excels in one or more of those areas, but each of them has opportunities to improve as the vendor strives to deliver on provider expectations.”