Early MEDITECH EHR Implementation Service Clients Report Value

Early customers of MEDITECH’s proprietary EHR implementation services report higher satisfaction than  customers who partner with third-party health IT firms for MEDITECH implementations, according to a KLAS report.

Up until a few years ago, customers partnered with MEDITECH-certified (i.e. READY-certified) firms for EHR implementation services. Now, customers have the option to go through MEDITECH for implementation services.

Previous KLAS research has shown that EHR vendors who implement their own software often see mixed outcomes and struggle with complex projects due to a lack of expertise. However, data from three clients (half of MEDITECH’s implementation services client base at the time of data collection) indicated the opposite.

MEDITECH’s overall score for implementation services was a 95.5 out of 100, a boost compared to the market average score of 87.9 for READY-certified EHR implementation services.

All three MEDITECH implementation services customers spoke positively about the firm’s resources, noting that MEDITECH was collaborative and helped keep the project on track when issues arose. However, two clients noted that they had some complications with their resources; one had to replace a resource, and the other had to intervene when a consultant caused technical difficulties.

Of the READY-certified health IT firms in the report, Navin Haffty (a Tegria company) and Huron served the widest breadth of clients. Customers reported that the firms deliver satisfactory results and align well with organizational goals.

Highly satisfied Navin Haffty clients viewed the firm as a partner and collaborator in their EHR implementation process. Customers described project managers as willing to go above and beyond. In some instances, clients reported that consultants helped improve other projects that had gone awry. A few smaller healthcare organizations noted that the firm provided guidance that was too “high level.”

Huron clients reported that the firm’s knowledgeable staff contributed to positive outcomes. For example, when Huron temporarily paused one customer’s project due to financial concerns, the client saw that as a testament to their collaboration with the firm.

Two other clients struggled with their EHR implementation when COVID-19 forced their resources into remote work. However, one of the two reported that its project improved once its resource returned on-site.

medSR clients reported satisfaction with their consultants’ ability to communicate well and complete projects on time. However, a few clients noted that project scoping issues led to nickel-and-diming, and others reported consultants don’t always offer strategic guidance.

Engage (a Tegria company) and ettain health primarily serve healthcare organizations with under 100 beds. Engage clients reported positive experiences with the staff’s strategic knowledge and subject matter expertise.

Customers noted that consultants are quick to understand client needs and deliver resources. Additionally, clients reported that Engage staff kept projects organized and on track. One unsatisfied respondent noted struggles with miscommunication during their project.

Limited data from clients of ettain health revealed that customers reported developing a great relationship with the firm and appreciated its early pre-implementation planning, clear communication, and strategic guidance. However, one client wished ettain health had provided more pushback during the planning phase of the project.

Healthcare Triangle clients displayed various levels of satisfaction. Satisfied customers perceived the firm as supportive, knowledgeable, and engaged. Generally, projects were completed within budget, bringing clients to feel they received good value from Healthcare Triangle’s services.

On the other hand, one client reported missing their deadline and noted frustration in not being able to participate in much of the project planning.