Performance rePort

Performance report
September 2013
PatientKeeper 2013
A new take on inpatient cpoe
www.KLASresearch.com
PatientKeeper 2013
A New Take on Inpatient CPOE
Mark Allphin
Report Author
P
atientKeeper offers a
OVERALL EASE OF USE RATINGS (Patientkeeper vs. select emrs)
CPOE overlay that is used
9
*
8
in conjunction with an existing
[C]: PatientKeeper CPOE is marked as a component
product, as it offers a subset of EMR functionality whereas
the other EMR ratings encompass full EMR functionality.
7.4
7.0
7
EMR. Is this a viable option for
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.3
8.3*
6.1
6
hospitals struggling to get CPOE
PRELIMINARY
VENDOR
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM KLAS KONFIDENCE LEVEL
5
adoption with their current
4
EMR solution? KLAS spoke
3
with all six organizations using
2
PatientKeeper CPOE as of August
1
EPIC
INPATIENT EMR
2013, getting perspectives from
SIEMENS
SOARIAN
CERNER ALLSCRIPTS MCKESSON MEDITECH MEDITECH MEDITECH MCKESSON PATIENTPARAGON
6.0
MAGIC
C/S (v.5.x)
HORIZON
KEEPER
SCM
POWERCHART
CPOE [C]
ALL EMR COMPONENTS
Worth Knowing
six IT professionals/decision
makers and five physicians, to
Short Path to Proficiency
find out.
level of comfort with IT systems. It took most physicians between 2 and 4 weeks to feel fully proficient.
ADOPTION OF
PATIENTKEEPER CPOE
higher than the overall ease-of-use ratings for major EMR products.
% OF
PHYSICIANS
USING
Initial training took physicians anywhere from 10 minutes to 4 hours depending on the physicians’
PatientKeeper CPOE’s usability sets the system apart from other products. As a point of reference,
respondents rated its ease of use 8.3 (out of 9.0), which is significantly
This is not a direct comparison, however, as EMR ease-of-use ratings
encompass all aspects of an EMR’s functionality, not just CPOE.
% OF ORDERS
ENTERED
Hospital-Wide Deployment Takes Time
Most customers are following PatientKeeper’s prescribed approach of a
100%
phased go live, in which the full product is rolled out to select groups of
90%
80%
2
2
physicians while working out the kinks. Two-thirds of customers using
PatientKeeper have been live more than six months, yet the majority
HIGH ADOPTION
(67%-100%)
have a limited amount of their physicians using the product. Half of
organizations were entering less than a third of their total orders via
70%
PatientKeeper.
60^
1
50%
MEDIUM ADOPTION
(34%-66%)
20%
10%
0%
Customers’ main reason for choosing PatientKeeper CPOE was an
inadequate EMR CPOE solution. Customers are using PatientKeeper
in conjunction with several different EMR strategies: four are using
40%
30%
Initial Success among Select EMRs
LOW ADOPTION
(1%-33%)
4
MEDITECH (two on C/S v.5.x and two on MAGIC), one is using
“ PatientKeeper
CPOE is a nice
way to protect an
HIS investment;
the system is a
nice alternative
for people who
don’t want to
do a rip and
replace.”
McKesson Horizon, and one is using a custom EMR. Respondents at
IT DIRECTOR
these facilities rated the early performance of PatientKeeper 86.4 out of
3
100, higher than all EMRs except Epic, and 100% said they would buy the product again.
Not Just a Stop-Gap Solution
All customers indicated PatientKeeper CPOE was part of their long-term plans, but almost all were running
a legacy EMR that will likely change at some point. A couple said they would bridge the gap by using
PatientKeeper as their common CPOE solution if or when they transition from one EMR to the next. This
would allow physicians to learn one system that would not change even if the underlying EMR does.
This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price.
SEPTEMBER 2013
T H E B I G P ICT U RE , b i t e s i z e
A Gap in
CPOE
Offerings
9 MONTHS
AVERAGE TIME LIVE
100%
Six organizations
are live with
PatientKeeper
CPOE. Most have
been live six to nine
months, but one
has been live for
about two years.
PLAN TO USE PATIENTKEEPER IN LONGTERM PLANS &
WOULD BUY
AGAIN
In the past, KLAS has
published many reports
dealing with CPOE. Although
meaningful use has increased
CPOE adoption, not all
solutions are created equal.
In a 2011 KLAS study, Epic
Customers see PatientKeeper as a long-term
solution. Several plan to supplement CPOE
with PatientKeeper’s charge capture or
documentation solutions, making for a more
comprehensive physician portal.
WHERE PATIENTKEEPER
SHOULD FOCUS
DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
60% ALERTS/PROMPTS
40% INTERFACING
Customers highlighted
communication and
attentiveness as
real strengths of
PatientKeeper. Ease
of use was highlighted
as well, though with a
phased rollout adoption
can take time. Most
customers mentioned
working through some
interfacing challenges
that were unique to them.
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES
RELATIONSHIP/
EASE
COMMUNICATION OF USE
ADOPTION
INTEGRATION
and Allscripts had over 50%
CPOE. Cerner and Siemens
followed with 42% and 23%,
respectively. Vendors like
McKesson (Horizon and
Paragon) and MEDITECH
both had less than 20% doing
CPOE.1
KLAS increasingly has
128
been asked by healthcare
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS
providers about viable
alternatives to their EMR’s
native CPOE offering due
to usability concerns or
timeline constraints. One CIO
60%
USE A MOBILE DEVICE
expressed, “We are in the
The number of physicians at hospitals using PatientKeeper ranged from 12
to nearly 300, and the number of beds ranged from about 50 to over 400.
PatientKeeper’s usage was still in pilot stages at several of the hospitals where it
had been deployed anywhere from four to nine months ago. Two smaller hospitals
had high adoption, but four of the six hospitals had low adoption.
process of installing CPOE
with MEDITECH. Most of our
holdup has been MEDITECH.
We signed up for CPOE
almost two and a half years
ago, and the dates were very
far out. It was frustrating that
they were that far out just
Hospitals/physicians were split over the usage
of PatientKeeper’s mobile solution. Those
using it felt it offered good tools to order on
the go whether at home or in meetings. The
physicians that weren’t using the mobile
solution preferred the larger screen and
keyboard on PCs.
10-30
MINUTES
because MEDITECH didn’t
. 4
S
V
AVERAGE TRAINING
TIME FOR A COMPUTERSAVVY PHYSICIAN
HOURS
AVERAGE TRAINING TIME
FOR A LESS COMPUTERSAVVY PHYSICIAN
Provider Price - $980
Non-Provider Price - $25,980
resources. . . . The long-term
goal is to continue to grow,
but we are looking at third
parties to see whether they
are viable solutions. Before,
AVERAGE TIME TO
PROFICIENCY
www.KLASresearch.com
(800) 920-4109
have the implementation
2-4 WEEKS
MEDITECH was always the
solution.”
To get the rest of the story, see the
DRILL DEEPER section.
1. See KLAS CPOE 2011 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.
PatientKeeper, SEPTEMBER 2013