KLAS: Dimensional Insight, Epic Drive Health Data Analytics Outcomes

Consolidated, end-to-end data and analytics platforms that allow healthcare organizations to better manage their data and guide business decisions are increasingly important, according to the KLAS Data & Analytics Platforms 2023 report.

The report, which sought to determine which vendors can handle complexity and deliver outcomes, asked healthcare organizations to assess their vendor partners based on how many data source types their solutions can ingest, how well those solutions deliver results for complex use cases, and how well each vendor partners with customers to help them achieve success.

Customers of Dimensional Insight and Innovaccer reported that their vendor’s analytics solution helps drive tangible outcomes with easy-to-use metrics.

Dimensional Insight customers indicated that its platform is easy to use, powerful, and provides broad functionality. Most of the respondents interviewed noted that they are getting their money’s worth from the product and are optimistic about future product development. However, a few users reported concerns that the platform’s advanced analytics capabilities, like predictive analytics and AI, may fall behind.

Users of Innovaccer’s platform highlighted that the company’s culture lends itself to quick product development and indicated that they appreciate the vendor’s “extensive executive involvement and support.” Specifically, customers noted that the platform helps efficiently integrate outcome-driving metrics into user workflows, which has led some to achieve outcomes related to health equity. Despite these successes, customers also stated that ongoing challenges with timelines and integration have led to bumpy platform implementation.

The report further demonstrates that Arcadia, Health Catalyst, and Innovaccer are validated most frequently for users with high-complexity projects.

Healthcare organizations who reported leveraging Arcadia’s population health platform for value-based care are the only users of the solution. Users noted that the platform is highly customizable, a benefit for customers whose projects are complex or require a large number of resources. Some users have expanded to other use cases for the solution, such as cost reduction, quality/risk management, and ingestion of claims and clinical data, with mixed results. Some customers reported being dissatisfied with the company or the platform, with 62 percent indicating that they feel that Arcadia hasn’t kept its promises, citing issues like insufficient training and lack of proactivity.

Health Catalyst customers also noted that its solution is highly customizable, making it a good fit for some more complex use cases. Satisfied users indicated that vendor executives and account managers are responsive to requests for help and additional expertise. Some less-satisfied customers noted that they feel a lack of proactivity and guidance from the vendor or that they are “being nickel-and-dimed because Health Catalyst didn’t proactively set up all needed functionality.”

Epic customers reportedly appreciate being able to take advantage of the vendor’s broad ecosystem of data through the analytics platform, which also allows them to integrate other, non-Epic data sources. Many users indicated that the company provides good customer support and feel that Epic keeps its promises to users. However, some respondents reported struggling with ease of use, stating that the training to use the solution is inadequate due to the platform’s complexity.

Oracle Health (Cerner) users noted that the solution is useful for pulling in electronic health record (EHR) data, and some hope the vendor will improve the platform by migrating it to the cloud. Some customers report lower satisfaction with the solution because the data isn’t always immediately easy to use and often requires more of an internal lift than expected. Users also reported concerns about inconsistent support as a result of staff turnover issues and layoffs.

The report also interviewed customers of Clearsense, but insights into the vendor and its software-as-a-service model were limited by its small client base and smaller pool of respondents. These limited insights indicated that most of the vendor’s clients are satisfied, but a small percentage of respondents reported being frustrated with Clearsense. The reasons behind this frustration were not reported.