Meditech 6.0 has received varying reviews. Why are some users so much more satisfied than others?
Imagine for a moment that you are a fly on the wall listening to a conversation between two healthcare executives. The conversation proceeds as follows:
CIO: We recently implemented a great EMR system across our hospitals. It has been very successful and helped us achieve Meaningful Use Stage 1.We have been able to make significant financial improvements, and we can provide advanced clinical care to our patients because all of their health records are consolidated. How is your system?
Director of Financial Services: Wow, must be nice. We have been attempting to implement our EMR system for almost three years, but it has become obvious that the software cannot perform as promised. It doesn’t have the level of integration that our vendor indicated. We have actually decided to switch vendors.
Taking the names out of the discussion, as a fly on the wall, you might infer that these providers are discussing two different EMR systems. And yet, believe it or not, both providers are discussing their experience with Meditech 6.0.
As providers have made the move to 6.0, customer satisfaction post go-live has been widely varied. To that point, 38 percent of customers that KLAS spoke with rated their experience above an 80, while 38 percent rated their experience below a 70 (C grade or lower).
Why the variability?
There are myriad reasons for the disparity. For example, providers now report that the natural integration they enjoyed in past years with Meditech Magic and C/S has been replaced by what some providers call the “Meditech minute” — the time it takes for orders and results to be passed through 6.0’s hybrid C/S-6.0 environment. However, this integration is still better in most providers’ minds than having to piece together disparate systems via an interface engine.
Another reason for the satisfaction gap is usability. In two recent reports focusing on the clinical usability of core EMRs and ED information systems, providers reported that Meditech’s out-of-the-box usability is low, but that with time (and a lot of internal resources, dedication, and maybe even consultants), the system can become very functional.
Although these considerations and others weigh differently on the minds of each provider, customers that have made the move from Magic seem to be hit the hardest, rating their experience at least 10 points lower on average.
From the fly-on-the-wall perspective, it is clear that Meditech 6.0 has resulted in both fans and foes. What has your experience been with Meditech 6.0? Fill out a KLAS evaluation and let your voice be heard.
To access the report on Meditech 6.0, including a discussion on market share, click here.