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 3.2 out of 10
N/A
N/A
$149
per month per provider with a required annual commitment
WebPT
Score 6.7 out of 10
N/A
Established in 2008, WebPT is an outpatient rehab therapy software platform helping more than 150,000 rehab therapy professionals from all practice sizes and specialties run their practices to improve care delivery and optimize business performance. And because WebPT is a cloud-based application, PTs, OTs, and SLPs can access the platform (and its data) from anywhere, at any time, promoting collaboration across patient care teams and with third-party payers. In addition to its…
per month per provider with a required annual commitment
Enterprise
Custom Pricing
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
eClinicalWorks
Practice Fusion
WebPT
Free Trial
No
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Required
Additional Details
—
—
WebPT Enterprise packages are custom-made based on clinic needs, and prices vary accordingly.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
eClinicalWorks
Practice Fusion
WebPT
Considered Multiple Products
eClinicalWorks
Verified User
Employee
Chose eClinicalWorks
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.
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.
The best scenario is a small non-profit clinic who needs a great EMR but cannot afford one like EPIC. I might also recommend this to colleagues who are starting a small business because I think PF would be a good, easy, and more affordable to get up and running. I think this EMR makes less sense in the setting of large academic institutions who need lots of easily manipulable data and a huge amount of support.
WebPT is well designed for some areas of rehab but not well suited for others. Speech seems to be a challenge for this type of EMR. Perhaps not the best type for this discipline due to limitations. For the other disciplines, it would be nice if the system suggested only specific tests per diagnosis code rather than all available tests in the EMR
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.
Document storage- You can upload documents and attach them to specific patients. As well as flag documents that need to be signed, and assign them to specific doctors.
Charting- Very detailed integration for charting.
Reporting- We really enjoy the reports we can pull from within the software.
The scheduler is very adaptive. There are options to change colors and textures for different insurances and appointment types with make it easier to differentiate patient types and issues at a glance.
Digital Paperwork Intake saves time for both the patient and staff.
Electronic Benefits Verification consolidates verifications so that we do not have to use multiple websites.
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.
I like that it carries forward information from previous notes. I also wonder, though, if there could be a more comprehensive "archive" of activities we had done in the past rather than only copying and paste from the previous note.
I like seeing a few comparisons of my outcome measures--when writing a progress note, I don't just want to see the last measure. Seeing the last 3-4 values from the test would have been helpful to really see different trends.
Fewer click boxes in the evals would be helpful to keep things moving along at some points. I appreciate the variety offered, but also struggle with how much clicking there is to get through.
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.
I gave it 9/10 for renewal because I have been using it for so long. It takes a long time to learn new documentation systems. I do not want to use valuable time on that. I also like that it flows directly into billing.
[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.
The EMR has a learning curve, but once you get used to it, it's fairly user-friendly: notes are easy to duplicate, information is thorough and useful. In my opinion, WebPT Billing is arcane and difficult to use, and offers no opportunity for the business to correct or edit any payments entered incorrectly by WebPT.
It is always available to me when needed thankfully, I hadn’t had a moment or a time when I was unable to access it when needed. My practice's power went out once which was the only incident when it was unavailable to everyone on the team but again, it had nothing to do with the availability offered by this product.
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).
Pages often load slowly. Our iMacs are highly reliable and we are connected to the highest speed Comcast business internet. We also connected each iMac via Cat 9 cable during COVID-19 pandemic to speed telelhealth appointments. Zoom does integrate very well with WebPT for telehealth. Their own modules do not integrate well with each other. For example, patients receive separate emails for patient intake and clinical outcomes. If confuses and frustrates many patients. Similarly, EMR flow sheet does not integrate with HEP creating redundancy.
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.
Support was pretty much always helpful. My only complaint was not being able to always get someone on the phone immediately during working hours and having to wait to hear back. But once we heard back, problems were solved quickly and sufficiently. Staff was always friendly and knowledgeable
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.
I was trained by an in house employee. It was very easy to learn. The EMR is pretty self explanatory. When you click on something to complete a task, it doesn't take an extra 10 steps, what the action says, is what it does
WebPT has its entire separate platform for training, containing many different guides, tutorials, and video references to help you become familiar and competent with the software suites. This includes having various demonstrations that allow you to click and navigate pages in the ways you would actually do it in WebPT. WebPT also gives you a sandbox company in the actual website to tinker with and trial things out. This makes it easy to catch and avoid errors you would have otherwise made with active patient data/schedules.
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.
I think it would help to have another education session maybe 6 months after the initial sessions. This would help the user come up with an enhanced experience after they have used the program for a period of time. It is hard to comprehend everything at first, especially for people that need hands on learning
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.
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.
Also, I have used PTWired and HEP2GO, but they were not in the database. WebPT automatically generates a patient profile, which is very helpful. WebPT also doesn't require the patient to download an app from the App Store, which is an added step for patients to perform, which will decrease compliance.
The current terms and pricing would be fair if they provided adequate performance, reliability, support, and customer service. As they have lapsed in these areas WebPT is overpriced. I would not recommend any PT practice of any size agree to a long term contract with WebPT until they prove they will deliver on their promises.
I couldn’t access WebPT on multiple screens to complete tasks at an efficient and effective time. It works to adjust to the same things presented on one screen when trying to work on a separate project utilizing one therapists schedule. This complicated the goal and tasks needed to complete at the time
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.
