eClinicalWorks headquartered in Westborough offers their EHR / EMR solution, which can be upgraded to a full practice management solution at higher pricing tiers.
$449
per month per provider
Practice Fusion
Score 4.5 out of 10
N/A
N/A
$149
per month per provider with a required annual commitment
When we did the evaluation (about 10 years ago now) eClinicalWorks had a similar featureset, but was designed as a modular cost platform, so if you had certain features you could choose to add them, or not add them which then impacted the total cost. Most of the other products …
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 …
I think eClinicalWorks and Evident are similar. eClinicalWorks has the better software. Evident has the better customer service. I think Cerner stands out above both.
We selected eClinicalWorks because it had great reviews. We do find that it is much easier to use than Medisoft. Our employees tend to feel that it is a little easier to transition between the patient area and the exam area.
eClinicalWorks is easy to learn from a staff and provider standpoint. Tabs/links are clear and concise. Just by playing around with the system for a few hours, I was able to learn most of the important tabs/headings.
Lowest cost of entry compared to other EMRs we had experience in implementing. Our customers were not ready to spend seven figures on large EMR systems they will be locked in for eight to ten years down the road. They also did not want to store a lot of local data on expensive …
eClinicalWorks is above average for primary care outpatient services. It is not my favorite but it is not the worst either. ECW was selected by the group prior to my arrival so I cannot speak to why it was selected. I had an easy time adopting it but I have an extensive …
At the end of the day, the EHR systems do many things similarly. How each system does things may vary, but what stands out to the providers, clinical team and administration are the following few things. The providers and clinical team want to have an ease of use in the …
eClinicalWorks has a better user interface than the other products because it allows the user to navigate seamlessly between the progress note and chart. In addition, all information is easy to find based on the design. Their triggers and order sets are comprehensive allowing …
I've also used NextGen and Epic. I believe that Epic is by far the best EHR on the market for medium-large healthcare organizations. There are downsides however including the cost of the Epic solution which makes it cost prohibitive for some organizations to implement Epic. …
The only other EMR I have used is EPIC. I worked as a scribe for PAMF, where I spent 50 hours a week in front of EPIC. I got to know it really well, and have used PF much less, so it is difficult to make a comparison. EPIC came with so many more options to view test results, …
It wasn't really a choice for me- I used the chiropractic specific when working for chiropractors and then used Practice Fusion while I was working for an alternative healthcare doctor. The doctors all had chosen the software before signing me on, there wasn't really an option …
NextGen is hard to use as far as medical records. Practice Fusion is user friendly. There is a great knowledge base for questions asked. Practice Fusion takes all the guess work out of the day.
Practice fusion is much more user friendly than the other programs that we have used. The more costly EMR's were definitely no better and the ones we have used were not nearly as easy to use. I would highly recommend practice fusion over Athena or Allscripts.
If you love clicking around in a pretty EMR all day long then this is the EMR for you. [However, I believe] if you are looking for efficiency and support, you should look elsewhere. [I feel] this is an EMR clearly designed by the tech world without much attention or care for those who use it and if you look at the reviews carefully you see that most of the people who love it are in IT.
I think this is a great tool for a smaller practice, and I really like that it is not practice-specific. It seems like any type of doctor could use the site. I also think this is really great for remote workers because you are able to log on via the internet. I think that this tool would not be good for those looking to have a specific practice software. I've worked for other doctors alongside the one I used practice fusion for, and the other doctors used specialty specific software because of the customization to their job and charting.
Access to patient's records - obvious lack of file and charts; transportable ; multi user synchronous access
Produces clinical note as end product that is organized and "readable" as opposed to the gibberish output of many EMR's that look like a poorly formatted FORTRAN printouts
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.
One of the biggest frustrations is that PF only imports PDFs of lab results, but does nothing to allow manipulation of the numbers within these PDFs. I can pull up lab results but can't look at a graph, for example, of trends in serum sodium or hematocrit.
Like EPIC, it would be nice to have an option like scrolling to all the "***"s using F2, which I always try to do on PF until I realize it does not work.
I wish PF had more dot phrases to pull in things like lab results, etc., into the note. Since I cannot copy and paste lab results (which are stored in PDF) or blow them in with a dot phrase, I have to manually re-write them, which leaves our notes more vulnerable to human error. If this feature DOES exist, it isn't obvious to me or anyone in our clinic.
It would be really nice to hear from PF support to see if we had any unmet needs in the clinic so that they could educate us on how to better use this EMR to support those needs.
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.
[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.
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.
We always get a return call within the time stated. There are many available topics on the forum and it is often easy to find the issue you are seeking more information on. When we have tried the live chat feature we have been satisfied with the timeliness and response.
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.
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.
eClinicalWorks is above average for primary care outpatient services. It is not my favorite but it is not the worst either. ECW was selected by the group prior to my arrival so I cannot speak to why it was selected. I had an easy time adopting it but I have an extensive history of working with EMRs as a CMIO. As a company, they are constantly work to improve their product
The only other EMR I have used is EPIC. I worked as a scribe for PAMF, where I spent 50 hours a week in front of EPIC. I got to know it really well, and have used PF much less, so it is difficult to make a comparison. EPIC came with so many more options to view test results, visits to other health facilities, and past notes. It also had so many more ways you could format your notes, blow in data, and statistically analyze data. While EPIC is a much more comprehensive and well-supported EMR, it also would be too heavy and unnecessary for the small scale clinic work I do at a community clinic. I feel that each EMR has the environment they are well-suited for, and I am glad to be using PF now.
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.