Post on 04-Aug-2020
P e r f o r m a n c e r e P o r t
September 2013
w w w . K L a S r e s e a r c h . c o m
PatientKeeper 2013 a new taKe on inPatient cPoe
Per
for
ma
nc
e r
ePo
rt
Oct
ober
201
0
PatientKeeper 2013A New Take on Inpatient CPOE
PatientKeeper offers a
CPOE overlay that is used
in conjunction with an existing
EMR. Is this a viable option for
hospitals struggling to get CPOE
adoption with their current
EMR solution? KLAS spoke
with all six organizations using
PatientKeeper CPOE as of August
2013, getting perspectives from
six IT professionals/decision
makers and five physicians, to
find out.
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
Mark Allphin Report Author
Short Path to Proficiency Initial training took physicians anywhere from 10 minutes to 4 hours depending on the physicians’ level of comfort with IT systems. It took most physicians between 2 and 4 weeks to feel fully proficient. PatientKeeper CPOE’s usability sets the system apart from other products. As a point of reference,
Worth KnoWing
OVERALL EASE OF USE RATINGS (PatientkeePer vs. select emrs)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1EPIC
INPATIENT EMRMEDITECH
MAGICMCKESSON
PARAGONSIEMENS
SOARIANMEDITECH
6.0ALLSCRIPTS
SCMMCKESSON
HORIZONPATIENT- KEEPER
CPOE [C]
PRELIMINARY VENDOR
[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.
ALL EMR COMPONENTS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM KLAS KONFIDENCE LEVEL
MEDITECH C/S (v.5.x)
CERNERPOWERCHART
7.47.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.3 6.1
8.3*
aDOPtiOn OF PatientkeePer cPOe
100%
90%
80%
70%
60^
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% OF PHYSICIANS USING
% OF ORDERS ENTERED
HIGH ADOPTION (67%-100%)
MEDIUM ADOPTION (34%-66%)
LOW ADOPTION (1%-33%)
2
43
1
2
*
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.”
“
IT DIRECTOR
respondents rated its ease of use 8.3 (out of 9.0), which is significantly higher than the overall ease-of-use ratings for major EMR products. This is not a direct comparison, however, as EMR ease-of-use ratings encompass all aspects of an EMR’s functionality, not just CPOE. hoSPital-Wide dePloyment taKeS time Most customers are following PatientKeeper’s prescribed approach of a phased go live, in which the full product is rolled out to select groups of physicians while working out the kinks. Two-thirds of customers using PatientKeeper have been live more than six months, yet the majority have a limited amount of their physicians using the product. Half of organizations were entering less than a third of their total orders via PatientKeeper.
initial SucceSS among Select emrS 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 MEDITECH (two on C/S v.5.x and two on MAGIC), one is using McKesson Horizon, and one is using a custom EMR. Respondents at these facilities rated the early performance of PatientKeeper 86.4 out of 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.
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
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
been asked by healthcare
providers about viable
alternatives to their EMR’s
native CPOE offering due
to usability concerns or
timeline constraints. One CIO
expressed, “We are in the
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
because MEDITECH didn’t
have the implementation
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,
MEDITECH was always the
solution.” To get the rest of the story, see the DRILL DEEPER section.
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
1. See KLAS CPOE 2011 Report
Provider Price - $980 Non-Provider Price - $25,980
www.KLASresearch.com (800) 920-4109
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.
Six organizations are live with PatientKeeper CPOE. Most have been live six to nine months, but one has been live for about two years.
t H e B i G P i c t U r e , B i t e s i z e
monthSAVERAGE TIME LIVE
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSESRELATIONSHIP/
COMMUNICATIONEASE
OF USEADOPTION INTEGRATION
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.
USE A MOBILE DEVICE60%
PLAN TO USE PATIENT-KEEPER IN LONG-
TERM PLANS & WOULD BUY
AGAIN
100%9
60%40%
WHERE PATIENTKEEPER SHOULD FOCUS DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
ALERTS/PROMPTS
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.
a gaP in cPoe offeringS
128 AVERAGE NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS
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.
WeeKS2-4 AVERAGE TIME TO PROFICIENCY
minuteShourS10-30 4
AVERAGE TRAINING TIME FOR A COMPUTER-SAVVY PHYSICIAN
AVERAGE TRAINING TIME FOR A LESS COMPUTER- SAVVY PHYSICIAN
VS.