Issue link: https://beckershealthcare.uberflip.com/i/610563
60 HEALTH IT Andrews, Texas, selected MEDITECH's EHR. Albany, Ga.-based Phoebe Putney Health Sys- tem went live on MEDITECH's EHR Oct. 1. Toledo, Ohio-based ProMedica launched its Epic EHR Nov. 2 Newport News, Va.-based Riverside Health System chose Epic's EHR. Saint Francis Medical Center in Dexter, Mo., chose Epic's EHR with a projected go-live date of July 2016. San Diego-based Scripps Health selected Epic's EHR with implementation scheduled for mid-2017. New Bedford, Mass.-based Southcoast Health went live on Epic's EHR Oct. 1. Sleepy Eye (Minn.) Medical Center chose MEDITECH's EHR platform. SSM Health St. Mary's Hospital-Audrain in Mexico, Mo., went live on Epic's EHR June 6. Bethlehem, Pa.-based St. Luke's University Hospital Network will implement Epic's EHR. Boston-based Steward Health Care System selected MEDITECH's EHR. Toledo (Ohio) Clinic & Outpatient Surgery Center went live on eClinicalWorks' EHR platform in mid-October. Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health selected athenahealth's EHR. UMass Memorial Health Care, based in Worcester, Mass., plans to switch to Epic's EHR platform. Raleigh, N.C.-based WakeMed Health & Hospitals went live on Epic's EHR early in the year. West Park Hospital in Cody, Wyo., chose MEDITECH's EHR. Danbury-based Western Connecticut Health Network selected Cerner's EHR. Glendale, Wis.-based Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare will implement Epic's EHR. n KLAS Ranks Top 10 EHR Vendors by Interoperability By Max Green A re we lifting together?" That's what the latest interoperability report by analytics firm KLAS asks major EHR vendors. Based on their respective strengths and weaknesses, KLAS' report rates the top 10 EHR vendors in the following order, from greatest interoperability to least. The corresponding numbers are based on the ven- dor's average rating across eight measures of interoperability. 1. Epic — 3.8* • Strengths: A savvy interoperability team that's well respected by competitors and providers • Weaknesses: The company is perceived as inflexible and closed off 2. athenahealth — 3.8* • Strengths: Perceived as proactive and easy to connect to while offering low-cost solutions • Weaknesses: Sharing between clients could be stronger 3. Cerner — 3.3 • Strengths: Offers strong tools for building complex connections • Weaknesses: Clients reported being irritated by costs and cli- ent-to-client sharing software, Resonance, is not taking off 4. MEDITECH — 3.0 • Strengths: Clients appreciate the vendor's transparent efforts • Weaknesses: Weaker tools lead to lower level of sharing overall 5. Greenway — 2.8 • Strengths: Optimism with new one-to-many connection for sharing • Weaknesses: Some clients report frustration with connections com- munications and smaller practices lack connections 6. NextGen — 2.8 • Strengths: High level of sharing with some complex connections and solutions to make connecting easier • Weaknesses: Clients report frustration with NextGen's higher cost and lack of expertise 7. Allscripts — 2.7 • Strengths: High volume of records shared within connections • Weaknesses: There are significant challenges to sharing data be- tween Allscripts solutions 8. eClinicalWorks — 2.6 • Strengths: Highest number of point-to-point and private network connections • Weaknesses: Tagged broadly as most frustrating vendor to connect to with weaker support and follow-up 9. GE Healthcare — 2.5 • Strengths: Long-standing connections bring value • Weaknesses: Frustratingly inattentive with interoperability projects at times and less than 20 percent of clients are consuming ex- changed data 10. McKesson — 2.5 • Strengths: Solutions offer some strong sharing options and HIE foundation • Weaknesses: Perceived as disjointed and clients report McKesson is difficult to work with *Although both Epic and athenahealth's scores rounded to 3.8, Epic scored slightly higher. n "