Epic Leads Medical Oncology EHR Market in Customer Satisfaction

Medical oncology EHR customers rank Epic highest for overall performance, according to a KLAS report.

KLAS interviewed 158 organizations to explore the performance of medical and radiation oncology EHR vendors.

As oncology practices and cancer centers have been acquired by hospitals, health systems, and large multispecialty organizations in recent years, there has been greater adoption of acute care EHR vendors’ medical oncology modules.

Respondents say Epic has made strides in delivering more robust oncology functionality. Recent developments around patient oncology history and treatment plans have helped boost patient safety and improve oncologists’ workflows.

Clients’ overall satisfaction also includes positive experiences with health IT support resources. However, despite noted positive improvements, customers report intensive initial builds and a steep learning curve due to the system’s complexity. One-fourth of interviewed organizations noted workflow-related gaps.

Oracle Health (Cerner) clients view PowerChart Oncology as a customizable tool that, once built out, can meet organizational needs and integrate well with the Oracle Health suite. However, respondents are worried about Oracle Health’s slow oncology development. There has been less change in their overall satisfaction with PowerChart Oncology in recent years.

Nearly half of those interviewed reported wanting improved workflows and order set functionality, mentioning challenges in learning and using the system. Some respondents also noted slow response times and variability in resource knowledge that detract from the overall support experience.

Even with reported problems, client loyalty remains high for both vendors. All Epic customers and nearly all Oracle Health (Cerner) respondents would buy the solution again, emphasizing the benefits of IT consolidation.

Amid trends of practice consolidation, medical oncology EHR vendors Ontada (McKesson) and Flatiron Health have maintained a mostly satisfied customer base of mainly community oncology centers and outpatient clinics not owned by acute care organizations.

Ontada and Flatiron customers say their vendor leverages oncology-specific expertise to tailor strong web-based products. Ontada iKnowMed clients mentioned straightforward workflows and oncology-specific functionality, particularly with regimen management.

Respondents underscored their close vendor relationship, driven by responsive support teams and regular account manager meetings. However, there are concerns that Ontada’s development is falling behind, with respondents calling for more automation, better administrative reporting, and improved integration.

Flatiron Health customers point to OncoEHR’s product quality, usability, and ease of onboarding as the main drivers of satisfaction. Those factors, in addition to improved support responsiveness, have boosted customer loyalty in recent years. Still, respondents would like the vendor to strengthen customer collaboration during development and enhance administrative functionality.

Offering medical and radiation oncology solutions, Elekta and Varian (limited data) perform well in radiation oncology. However, because higher shares of their medical oncology customer bases are owned or associated with an acute care organization, both have experienced higher vulnerability to replacement.

Amid changing market dynamics, Elekta medical oncology customers note the vendor has worked to improve relationships and address development requests. Customers said they continue to appreciate the system’s stability and robust functionality.

KLAS has validated one live cloud deployment of Elekta’s MOSAIQ, and several organizations are considering moving to the cloud. Respondents not using or considering using the cloud report that Elekta has fallen behind in delivering new features, causing nearly one-third of interviewed customers to plan to leave.

Medical oncology customers using Varian (limited data) reported satisfaction with ARIA’s oncology-specific functionality. Respondents’ main concerns are a lack of health IT vendor engagement in driving the product forward and unstable upgrades.

Additionally, some said that Varian focuses more on radiation technology, so their plan for medical oncology is unclear. As a result, four of the nine interviewed customers do not plan to keep the technology long-term.

In recent years, satisfaction with Varian’s radiation oncology EHR has improved. Specifically, respondents mention better response times and knowledge of support resources. Customers enjoy the strong integration between Varian’s radiation oncology equipment and health IT, but some struggle to integrate ARIA with non-Varian products.

Additionally, while reports of nickel-and-diming have recently gone down, 30 percent of interviewed customers still feel that everything from the vendor comes with an extra charge.

Elekta customers have seen little change in their experience with radiation oncology. They continue to appreciate Elekta’s responsive support team and feel the EHR meets most of their radiation oncology needs.

Customers appreciate the vendor’s efforts to provide integration but are experiencing difficulties integrating with non-Elekta solutions. Other concerns include slow response to development requests and few upgrades that are informed by customer needs. These concerns have weakened the perception of the EHR’s value, with one-quarter of interviewed customers planning to leave.

Offering medical and radiation oncology solutions, Elekta and Varian (limited data) perform well in radiation oncology. However, because higher shares of their medical oncology customer bases are owned or associated with an acute care organization, both have experienced higher vulnerability to replacement.

Amid changing market dynamics, Elekta medical oncology customers note the vendor has worked to improve relationships and address development requests. Customers said they continue to appreciate the system’s stability and robust functionality.

KLAS has validated one live cloud deployment of Elekta’s MOSAIQ, and several organizations are considering moving to the cloud. Respondents not using or considering using the cloud report that Elekta has fallen behind in delivering new features, causing nearly one-third of interviewed customers to plan to leave.

Medical oncology customers using Varian (limited data) reported satisfaction with ARIA’s oncology-specific functionality. Respondents’ main concerns are a lack of health IT vendor engagement in driving the product forward and unstable upgrades.

Additionally, some said that Varian focuses more on radiation technology, so their plan for medical oncology is unclear. As a result, four of the nine interviewed customers do not plan to keep the technology long-term.

In recent years, satisfaction with Varian’s radiation oncology EHR has improved. Specifically, respondents mention better response times and knowledge of support resources. Customers enjoy the strong integration between Varian’s radiation oncology equipment and health IT, but some struggle to integrate ARIA with non-Varian products.

Additionally, while reports of nickel-and-diming have recently gone down, 30 percent of interviewed customers still feel that everything from the vendor comes with an extra charge.

Elekta customers have seen little change in their experience with radiation oncology. They continue to appreciate Elekta’s responsive support team and feel the EHR meets most of their radiation oncology needs.

Customers appreciate the vendor’s efforts to provide integration but are experiencing difficulties integrating with non-Elekta solutions. Other concerns include slow response to development requests and few upgrades that are informed by customer needs. These concerns have weakened the perception of the EHR’s value, with one-quarter of interviewed customers planning to leave.