eClinicalWorks headquartered in Westborough offers their EHR / EMR solution, which can be upgraded to a full practice management solution at higher pricing tiers.
In our experience, the integrated credit card processor breaks far too often which halts our ability as a business to schedule appointments (because they require a deposit) and accept client payments for services. Other functionality “breaks” or outages happen far too often for us to consider ClinicHQ reliable software.
eClinicalWorks should be used in most medical situations. The program generally speaking works the way it should keeping track of patient records and the like. They have recently added an inpatient module for ASCs. Seems to work pretty well for smaller practices that don't require a lot of additional features or integrations.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
One of the strengths of ECW can also be a weakness depending on the user's perception. ECW has a lot of redundancies. There are multiple pathways to perform a task. It can be appealing to advanced computer users because of the versatility. I have found that it tends to confuse lesser experienced computer users.
The creation of templates is very easy and any provider in our system can create one. It definitely makes documentation more efficient. By creating a set of templates for the clinic, we are able to standardize the orders/procedures along established guidelines.
We have converted our scheduling to open access. ECW allows us to set the follow up time and the end of the visit and then an alert is created. Front office staff can run the report and schedule patients closer to the actual time. It has improved our no show/cancellation rates.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
In our experience, some basic functionality requires multiple steps to complete. Would like to see more efficiencies in the core functionality.
ClincHQ provides minimal support to clients. During our service period with ClinicHQ, there were only two employees available to all clients for support. There was no implementation management and support tickets lacked meaningful information and was usually not resolved to our satisfaction. We got most of our support/help with issues from other users in a Facebook group. Clinic HQ stated recently that they have nearly 500 clients. Hiring more employees to provide quality support to clients would be a plus.
Customer Service - Clinic HQ is privately owned. The owner is involved with support and is unprofessional, rude, and openly insulting to clients. In my experience, questions and feedback are taken as personal attacks and the owner attacks back. This has no place in business and is something we could not waste our time on since we have such a busy clinic. The messaging from the owner seems to be take it or leave it. I’ve never worked with a software company that operates this way. Listening to client feedback without taking offense and working with clients as partners would be a much better approach.
ClinicHQ has a dated user interface and could be upgraded to include more efficiencies in the core functionality. However, it is privately owned and it appears unlikely that they can do a major product overhaul/upgrade due to lack of funds.
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
[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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
We selected Clinic HQ as a brand new clinic because to us on paper they had everything we needed to run the business. In actuality, some of the software functionality did not work as advertised, and they lack quality support and support staff. They also seems to be loose with their software development methodology or lack it completely.
I was attracted by the final note format of ECW. I said then and still say that most EMR's clinical notes are terrible to try to read and follow in orderly fashion by comparison...BUT the devil is in the data entry and that is where "you live" as a clinician. Incredibly frustrating software because of inflexibility and restrictions of multi level data fields that can only be opened one at a time (i.e. no "toggling" between windows... ooen read and close...then reopen other data entry window....then close and repeat if you need to refer back to original window of data. This applies throughout the software and is due to its reliance on SQL architecture from what I have been told). Kills productivity.
The monthly fee is $199 but, in our experience, the costs for the labor/time to resolve issues ourselves or work with support added about $200-$400 more in admin costs per month.
When there was a credit card processor outage, functionality in ClinicHQ was impacted so our clients could not schedule appointments because a deposit was required resulting in lost clients and lost revenue, appointment reminder emails and notifications could not be sent so we had a 10-20% no show rate on those days resulting in lost income, and clients could not pay online prior to check-out and instead had to wait in long lines for a staff member to manually key in their credit card data resulting in a very poor and frustrating client experience.
In our experience, the poor technical support and customer service was stressful and time consuming for our staff. Clinic HQ seems to value their time and costs over their clients’ time and costs. Because software is key to our high volume business and daily operations, we could not continue working with this software provider. Having only 3 U.S. employees to support U.S. clients, having outages of key functionality, and having no funding for major upgrades and new functionality were big drawbacks for us.
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.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
