KLAS: Providers favor GE's PET/CT slightly more
While the developing technology is expensive, KLAS, the Orem, Utah-based research firm, found that providers utilizing PET/CT imaging technology save time and improve image resolution, based on a survey of providers. However, GE Healthcare edged out Philips and Siemens in KLAS’ first report on PET/CT vendors, titled “PET/CT 2011: New Technologies in Focus.”
GE achieved an overall performance score of 87.7, followed by Philips Healthcare with 87.5 and Siemens Healthcare with 84.2. Of the customers surveyed, 100 percent said they would buy GE's Discovery again, while 93 percent said they would purchase Siemens' Biograph again and 95 percent said they would purchase Philips' Gemini again.
Hospital integration and field support were among the expectations that GE met, according to the report, which noted the vendor also received the best scores in service and support. Philips' “Time-of-Flight technology impresses most technologists, but some are still leery of the overall benefit,” according to KLAS, and Siemens was found to be easy to use and high in quality, with strong service and support performance as well.
“When it comes to provider satisfaction, every PET/CT vendor measured in the report scored high. In fact, they scored well above the KLAS medical equipment average for service and even the score for the lowest ranked system was high,” report author Ben Brown, general manager of imaging research for KLAS, said in a statement. “However, PET/CT technology is still a new enough technology that providers are struggling with how to maximize the use and reimbursement payments for these devices.”
Notably, few providers who were interviewed for the report were scanning at full capacity and only 55 percent of them were using PET/CT for CT overflow, according to the report.
Among the negatives noted in the report, GE's included “nickel-and-diming” providers and offering a difficult technologist interface. For Siemens, providers noted that integration into PACS or EMR was difficult, and Philips' customers said the physical ergonomics of the Gemini PET/CT are poorly designed.
“As this was the first year KLAS has researched PET/CT devices, we do not yet have year-over-year comparison data available,” said Brown. “It is clear that, although many providers were not using their PET/CT devices at full capacity, all were very happy with their new nuclear medicine imaging equipment. For vendors to stand out in this market, they will have to provide ongoing, exceptional service to providers.”
The firm noted a significant obstacle in implementing the greater use of PET/CT associated with the delivery of radiopharmaceuticals necessary for PET imaging. “As the industry grows, vendors that consistently provide on-time, proactive service to their clients will continue to be big winners,” KLAS stated.
The full report can be purchased here.
GE achieved an overall performance score of 87.7, followed by Philips Healthcare with 87.5 and Siemens Healthcare with 84.2. Of the customers surveyed, 100 percent said they would buy GE's Discovery again, while 93 percent said they would purchase Siemens' Biograph again and 95 percent said they would purchase Philips' Gemini again.
Hospital integration and field support were among the expectations that GE met, according to the report, which noted the vendor also received the best scores in service and support. Philips' “Time-of-Flight technology impresses most technologists, but some are still leery of the overall benefit,” according to KLAS, and Siemens was found to be easy to use and high in quality, with strong service and support performance as well.
“When it comes to provider satisfaction, every PET/CT vendor measured in the report scored high. In fact, they scored well above the KLAS medical equipment average for service and even the score for the lowest ranked system was high,” report author Ben Brown, general manager of imaging research for KLAS, said in a statement. “However, PET/CT technology is still a new enough technology that providers are struggling with how to maximize the use and reimbursement payments for these devices.”
Notably, few providers who were interviewed for the report were scanning at full capacity and only 55 percent of them were using PET/CT for CT overflow, according to the report.
Among the negatives noted in the report, GE's included “nickel-and-diming” providers and offering a difficult technologist interface. For Siemens, providers noted that integration into PACS or EMR was difficult, and Philips' customers said the physical ergonomics of the Gemini PET/CT are poorly designed.
“As this was the first year KLAS has researched PET/CT devices, we do not yet have year-over-year comparison data available,” said Brown. “It is clear that, although many providers were not using their PET/CT devices at full capacity, all were very happy with their new nuclear medicine imaging equipment. For vendors to stand out in this market, they will have to provide ongoing, exceptional service to providers.”
The firm noted a significant obstacle in implementing the greater use of PET/CT associated with the delivery of radiopharmaceuticals necessary for PET imaging. “As the industry grows, vendors that consistently provide on-time, proactive service to their clients will continue to be big winners,” KLAS stated.
The full report can be purchased here.