Cerner HealtheIntent vs. Epic

Cerner HealtheIntent has been very reliable, as it hardly ever goes down. So it can be counted on. The end-user interface takes some time to get used to and could be better. Modules aren't always easy to find, making doing a certain task a bit cumbersome or taking more time to perform a task.

Incentivized

Epic is very good on the medical side and continues improving mental health and dental care. Having integrated telehealth via Zoom was a game-changer. During COVID, it was vital to have telehealth options and to ensure it was completely HIPAA Compliant and easy to document inside their health record.

Incentivized

• Reliability means Cerner HealtheIntent hardly ever goes down
• Cerner HealtheIntent can be customized for our business needs
• We have our own Cerner HealtheIntent server instead of using the cloud

Incentivized

• Updated technology. Epic consistently stays up to date and advances their technology and features.
• Shortcuts, templates, and smart phrases help to make using the software easier and faster with accuracy.
• Intuitive user interface. Epic has put a lot of thought into the design and function of the software and has ensured that it is user friendly.

Incentivized

• Metadata management in HealtheIntent should be improved. For example, we could find similar looking data sources (for example, diagnosis tables with similar names) but it was hard to distinguish and know which one is the one in production. It was because several data stewards loaded the same table with a different purpose (with similar tables names). And HealtheIntent doesn't have a metadata "for a test" or "for development", which makes hard to manage versions of one data source.
• To run a SQL in HealtheIntent, there is a time limit of only 10 minutes. Also, there is no delicate configuration of query execution. It may not need a lot of functions like Toad or SQL developer, but what HealtheIntent provides is very limited.
• Similar to the one above, HealtheIntent may need better metadata management for users. It is hard to find a table that I need, even to find out the existence of the table. Basic statistics like the size of a table, # of rows may be helpful for users.

Incentivized

• Difficult to find what you need.
• Almost impossible to correct mistakes.
• Multiple screens must be navigated to get to what you want.

Incentivized

It is beyond measure the best EHR on the market.

Incentivized

My organization has been using the Epic platform for 10 years and counting! Epic has continuously improved and updated the system to align with current best practices and meet the needs of members and their patients. As an FQHC, we provide medical, dental, and mental health services, and it is essential to have access to all the patients' health information in one place. Integrating Care Everywhere and Telehealth options embedded directly in the EHR has greatly improved our ability to take the best care of each patient who walks through our doors.

Incentivized

A dedicated support staff for each module/area is provided by Epic. This is beneficial for points of contact, however, not all support staff are created equal, and there seems to be high turnover in these roles(staff seems to turn over every 1-2 years). This can make it challenging for continuity and quick support resolution as new staff are not as familiar with organization-specific needs, environments, and/or questions.

Incentivized

Well-vetted lesson plans that teach you what you need to know for success.

Incentivized

While not as effective as in-person training, it is still adequate.

Incentivized

Epic has a regimented implementation process that ensures a successful go-live.

Incentivized

Our organization had run Cerner EMR already so we only had a selection of adding HealtheIntent or not. There was no competitor. There are two aspects behind our decision: one is cost and the other is performance. We could save 50 full-time employee's expense to run our legacy analytics framework. I have no idea of details of the contract to buy and maintain HealtheIntent but generally speaking, it is saving money. Second, performances in terms of populating, processing data in HealtheIntent is way better than that of the legacy system.

Incentivized

Epic has more features and seems to be used by most hospital systems, which means information can be shared between systems. It is not compatible with Cerner, McKesson, or any other of the less commonly used products and we cannot view information from such facilities. I believe Epic has the most features. It automatically saves entries, unlike Quadrimed, for example, which does not save and if you accidentally get logged out you lose your information.

Incentivized

• ROI may be depending on the contract. But even if an organization is spending the same money for either homegrown analytics or HealtheIntent, HealtheIntent provides more agility of project or cost spending. If you don't like it you can discontinue anytime.
• The negative one is, HealtheIntent is a new product in Cerner and at this point, it may not be capable of everything like homegrown analytics. The question would be the future of HealtheIntent and will be able to cover what you need soon.
• If an organization is pursuing a standard, generic analytics and reporting (such as the combination of Oracle and Tableau), HealtheIntent is great. If not (for example, running R and d3.js for specific cases), the cost of migration to HealtheIntent will skyrocket.

Incentivized

• Improved Customer Satisfaction: After the initial implementation phase, I have seen increases in patient satisfaction. This is due to the increased transparency regarding their care as well as an increase in paid claims.
• Increased Revenue: In some cases I have seen Medicare denial rates drop from high 80's and 90's down to single digits. I have seen incredible jumps in the time payment is received from an approved claim.

Incentivized