eClinicalWorks headquartered in Westborough offers their EHR / EMR solution, which can be upgraded to a full practice management solution at higher pricing tiers.
N/A
Epic Cadence
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Epic Cadence is the company's medical scheduling module.
N/A
Pricing
eClinicalWorks
Epic Cadence Enterprise Scheduling
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
eClinicalWorks
Epic Cadence
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
eClinicalWorks
Epic Cadence Enterprise Scheduling
Considered Both Products
eClinicalWorks
No answer on this topic
Epic Cadence
Verified User
Analyst
Chose Epic Cadence Enterprise Scheduling
Centricity was limited in ability to scale and customize compared to Cadence for our environment. Also the regular updates for Cadence vs. Centricity is where Cadence really shines. Vendor support is also much better with Cadence over Centricity. We also like the robust …
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.
Cadence Enterprise Scheduling is particularly useful in a multiple provider, multiple location scenario. It is also quite useful in situations where there are multiple rooms or pieces of equipment that need to be scheduled.
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.
The system is simple to use it helps schedulers create appointments and, avoids placing patients in situations where they are scheduled at the same time in different facilities.
It has many reports that can help managers maintain a smooth operation and shows what areas need to improve.
It has a one place for all scheduling information for schedulers to see patient's appointments, especially when patients do not recall where or when their next appointments will be.
The system can be created in such a way that you can control who can make appointments and who can't.
They system when built provides warnings to schedulers helping to minimize many scheduling errors like overbooking.
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.
Questionnaires: EPIC seems to be very stringent on questionnaires and how may can be attached (only 1) on a Cadence level causing us to be quite inventive on how to get questioned answered on only certain visit types. One big stumbling block was the Ebola questionnaire. Currently we have a particular questionnaire for new Phy. Therapy patients which prevents us from adding the Ebola questionnaire to NEW patients. We are still struggling with this.
Patient Itinerates used for multiple appointments: Not very professional looking regardless of how you set up (OP visits, instructions etc: Most practices will not use the itinerary therefore adding dollars to having printing cards with the practice name on them. (the old fashioned way)
Building new DEP records: Wish there was a way to copy entire builds from one DEP to another.
Security": EPIC security is a nightmare to develop for multi faced users. RN that schedule appointments. Many of our practices are small practices that only have 2-3 people (the doc, the RN and the scheduler/biller . This creates the need for everyone to do everything from a scheduling perspective and building this security can become very cumbersome from practice to practice as each is unique.
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.
As stated earlier, it seems to be the best out there, from a built perspective as well as a user application. While some practices feel it to be time consuming (Cadence/Prelude) together others who see the whole integration thru the Epicare and Resolute systems love it. From an IT perspective, while sometimes cumbersome to build, the end results are pleasing and satisfying. We can usually accomplish what we set out to do with the practice vision in mind.
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.
EPIC has been great in their support and communication at all hours. They also openly communicate when an application TS (Technical Support) will be away and who is covering for that person. During standard non working hours - you always know what number and who to call to get resolution to issues that arise at those times
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.
Use implementation team from EPIC but know what you want and make sure that it=s what you get. You can be easily swayed by lack of knowledge on the application and therefore decisions are made that are not correct and then have to be redone. EPIC including Cadence needs a great understanding of the workflows you currently have and how they will be impacted by your build. We had a great understanding of the existing workflows in the offices, however lack of knowledge on the Cadence IT side, had a large impact on what was delivered as our implementers believed that a standard EPIC workflow would suffice and did not.
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.
Centricity was limited in ability to scale and customize compared to Cadence for our environment. Also the regular updates for Cadence vs. Centricity is where Cadence really shines. Vendor support is also much better with Cadence over Centricity. We also like the robust capability of the reporting module in Cadence over other vendors.
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.
