athenaClinicals vs. Meditech Electronic Health Records

Works well for family med and peds primary care. Would not be well suited to wound healing/hyperbaric medicine practice in current configuration as the specific documentation requirements of wound management and hyperbaric treatments don't mesh well with the layout and forms that I observed.

Incentivized

Meditech is well-suited to small, independent hospitals requiring a flexible, mostly full-featured EHR with good support. The Expanse upgrade was a significant step forward, and brought the system into the modern world of touch devices while reducing clinician documentation burden.

Incentivized

• Quality programs - able to see what measures are outstanding for the patient
• Reporting - able to report on multiple financial reports as well as clinical information
• Standardization of clinical information - the system forces users within the same specialty to use the same templates (as a starting point), therefore it is easier to standardize protocols and treatments of care

Incentivized

• Clean interface, easy to see alerts
• Light footprint on computers, quick to load
• Good organization of clinical material on the toolbar

Incentivized

• The schedule needs to be improved. You should be able to see the schedule in a day, a week , in a month view and be able to schedule directly from the schedule.
• It's difficult to name items because they are traditionally corrected very quickly

• Poor reporting
• Difficult to view grid data, such as complete medication history
• A lot of interfacing with its own product due to code differences

Incentivized

Overall the system is good. Actually, this was supposed to be the universal EMR when it came out during the Bush administration.

Incentivized

They are always there. Friendly and organized.

For a surgery center application, it is much better to use a system that is uniquely designed for surgery centers. Using Athena as a less than desirable work around has been a frustrating experience.

Incentivized