This presentation offers a a short description of the differences between EPIC Systems and Allscripts. The comparison shows percentages that has been taken from KLAS. This is just an overall information between the two EHR's.

1. Consultant Proposal
by Gina D.

2. • 100+ Physicians FTE, 10 practices
with 15 specialties
• North Dakota. Patients are increasing
and expanding health practice.
• First implementation 1998 with
McKesson practice partner.
• Need replacement of current EHR.
Issues with capabilities and Software is
inadequate for the practice.
Health Medical Associates
• Strategy “Rip and Replace”.
Interoperable between departments
• CPOE,EHR Management Clinical
Decision support, e-prescribing,
workflow, data integrity, electronic
forms, Mobile device support,
platform support.
• Certified EHR vendor and provide
training
Situational Analysis

3. • Implement to its 15 practices and
specialties.
• Implementation can take up to 6
months to be fully integrated.
• EHR should be fast and use
secure.
• Compatible with systems.
• Compliant to modern technology.
PLAN
• Increase patient quality care
• Attestation through Meaningful Use.
• Improve clinical decision support
• Exchange data through an Interoperable
system
• Decrease waiting time
• Increase net gross and revenues
Health Medical Associates

4. LOREM
IPSUM
Data 1
Data 2
Strategic
Planning
Identify risk
Management
Turn over
strategy
Create a
Project
Overview and
Migration
Path
Strategic
Goals

5. Patient Data Capture Functions
Functional Multiple Users Simultaneously and office
locations
Patient Data Management
Supports Growth Charts
E- Prescibing/ Ordering Function
Notification of drug interactions / indication checking
Enables processing refills and renewals
Customized workflows by provider / physician
Print out diverse documents from different screens
Generates Smart Lists (Add items as you type)
Record and Visualize Scan Images
Coding Update- Current diagnosis and procedure codes
Signing Authentication
Provide access online to patients to actual EHR- Patient
Portals
321
evaluation of
vendors
High/ Above Average - 3 Average/ Medium - 2 Below Average -1

6. Interoperability
Functionality
Telemedicine
Technical support/Service
Training
Attestation through Meaningful Use
Attractive Interface
Easy of use
General
TOTAL WEIGHT 77 65
High/ Above Average - 3 Average/ Medium - 2 Below Average -1
1016 206
Data
4Data
1
Data
2
1016 206
Data
4Data
1
Data
2
1016 206
Data
4Data
1
Data
2
1016 206
Dat
a 4
Dat
a 1
Dat
a 2

8. 1016 206
Data 4
Data 1
Data 2
1016 206
Data 4
Data 1
Data 2
1016 206
Data 4
Data 1
Data 2
Workflow
through
structure
data
E-
prescripti
on
brings
errors
Product
Financial
Burden
Smart
Phrases
Uses
Sipnus
Lab &
Rad
Easy
impleme
ntation
I-Cloud
Integrate
d system
for
history
Links
through
web
portal
Task to
Task
Can take
time
Time
consumin
g
Excellent
training
expensive

10. Platform
can be
dysfuncti
onal
Overlaps
with
medication
reconciliati
on
e-
prescriptio
n difficult
Too
many
clicks for
single
task
Not User
friendly
interface
Updates
ICD-10
Difficult
to
resolve
issues
Difficult
to
customiz
ation
Cover
every
specialty
Does not
Nickel
and
Dime

11. Market Share 2014

12. • EPIC provides excellent features. Lacks of Interoperability.
• Downfall is the money burdensome for the organization. Product is not
negotiable. Employees can loose positions.
• Competes with Epic.
• Certified vendor
• Budget wise-> More
affordable
• Easy to implement
• Deployment web based
• Customization for each user
• Interoperable
• Excellent customer
service
• Provide trainings.
• User- friendly
• Cloud based
• No maintenance
Health Medical Associates