KLAS: No Clear Answer For Urgent Care Centers Seeking EMRs

As urgent care centers seek to expand to accommodate increasing patient volume, many are finding that there are multiple options for going electronic, including ambulatory EMRs, ED solutions, and best-of-breed urgent care EMRs, according to a new KLAS report — Urgent Care 2012: A Host of EMR Options.

The report found that even best-of-breed urgent care EMRs might not be the best choice for every organization. According to report author Erik Bermudez, it seems to be a case of differing preferences rather than one solution being superior to others. “The best EMR really depends on the urgent care center,” he said. “Some value clinician efficiency. Others need top vendor support because they don’t have in-house IT. Some need to share patient information with an affiliated hospital. Each urgent care center should examine their facility’s needs, and then begin vetting vendors and products.”

For the study, KLAS interviewed 76 urgent care organizations about their EMR vendor’s performance, focusing on best-of-breed vendors CodoniX, DocuTAP, and Practice Velocity and giving an early look at Integritas. CodoniX, DocuTAP, and Practice Velocity were compared in the areas of efficiency and patient safety, reporting and charge capture, and vendor support and ongoing communication, with Practice Velocity edging out its competitors as the top vendor amid close-packed scores.

It also found that different providers use different vendors to fit their organizations. Standalone urgent care centers, or those in a chain, tend to use a best-of-breed vendor, while hospital-affiliated locations often adapt an in-house ED solution or ambulatory EMR to receive an integration advantage.