eClinicalWorks vs. Epic

If you love clicking around in a pretty EMR all day long then this is the EMR for you. [However, I believe] if you are looking for efficiency and support, you should look elsewhere. [I feel] this is an EMR clearly designed by the tech world without much attention or care for those who use it and if you look at the reviews carefully you see that most of the people who love it are in IT.

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

• Access to patient's records - obvious lack of file and charts; transportable ; multi user synchronous access
• Produces clinical note as end product that is organized and "readable" as opposed to the gibberish output of many EMR's that look like a poorly formatted FORTRAN printouts

• 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

• Meaningful Use Reports should be capturing data in real time and generated fairly quickly instead of the MAQ dashboard extraction process.
• Their support teams are not very helpful at certain topics such as the definition/logic of Meaningful Use calculations. These are generally difficult to determine but several cases in regards to Meaningful Use take several days before it gets addressed.
• Training videos would be helpful on their support website.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

If we had an option to easily switch to another EMR product we would. However, an EMR keeps you invested solidly in it - once you've started you're then going to be stuck with it. The investment into the data in the system are such that you have no real option to back out of what you are in and move into something else. Again, if we could, we would immediately move to another EMR. The ability to use it and be supported by the vendor has decreased nearly to the point of inability to use.

Incentivized

It is beyond measure the best EHR on the market.

Incentivized

[In my opinion] the features allowed by the system are not designed for providers. [I think] the systems are inefficient, and new features tend to be "bolt on" features either as products purchased and added from other providers or simply a module created and strapped onto the software. There doesn't seem to be much idea around making things easier for the provider, though they like to state that provider burnout is something they are working on.

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

I often cannot assign a proper diagnosis under the assessment section; and as mentioned, sometimes (about once a month) the dictation just freezes because "the request has timed out" (even restarting the iPhone/ laptop does not help).

You put in support cases through a support portal. [I believe] for no apparent reason, the company decided that their support cannot have access to actual patient records and as a result, it's required that they have to connect remotely to a computer system in our network, and log in as one of our users to do anything. This also entails that they are completely incapable of diagnosing problems and require significant amounts of user input and time to try and begin any sort of work on the problems. [In my opinion] this takes away from patient care and other concerns. Also, while you can put in as detailed a ticket as you want, when you are called, you have to go over the ticket again, as they don't seem to read or care what you put in, as it's more important to them to go over everything in painful detail. Often times you must explain to the tech how the process works. In the past month, we were upgraded overnight with zero warning, which caused issues the following day as we had to update every single computer in our network (over 300) and it requires administrative privileges so couldn't be done by a user. This also doesn't update any information in the programs list, so there's no way to tell whether the update happened or not.

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

Paid for training, did not help. They trained prior to go-live, but it was so long ahead that users weren't able to function well when it actually happened, they seemed unable to provide adequate support. [In my experience] further support is typically very boilerplate, and is thus not useful, and has additional cost.

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

It's very important to limit your schedule during the weeks after go live but it is equally important to have a resource that is the lead at the practice that ensures that milestones are met leading up to the go-live date. Someone must be the point person at the practice otherwise milestones will be missed and the implementation will run into problems.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

eClinicalWorks is above average for primary care outpatient services. It is not my favorite but it is not the worst either. ECW was selected by the group prior to my arrival so I cannot speak to why it was selected. I had an easy time adopting it but I have an extensive history of working with EMRs as a CMIO. As a company, they are constantly work to improve their product

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

• I will just share one area that our organization saw the ROI in a very short time period. That is the elimination of a dictation service for most of our specialty group doctors when we introducec Dragon Medical. This functionality brought a tangible benefit and a significant ROI in a short time period.

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