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.