Project Comparing Cerner, Meditech, Epic, McKesson

I would post this in the Nursing Informatics forum.

The biggest problems I have run into have less to do with the system in use and more with inadequate hardware - slow PC's.

Moved to Nursing Informatics Forum for more input.

No matter what software you have if the hospital is to cheap to purchase decent hardware with enough memory, RAM or IT department for upgrades and 24/7 support..... forget trying to make it work. = FRUSTRATION It is hard enough caring for the patient. Forget diagnosing a monitor and software problems.

Paper and ink will be what you crave after the roll-out is over.

I am working for a large hospital system a small rural satellite hospital. We are the stepchild. We get whatever the mothership throws out and not upgraded either. (this goes for chairs, monitors,otoscopes, stretchers,etc.)

So, be careful for what you wish for.... it might become a nightmare.

There are a few things you need to consider- first, these companies assume you're at a large hospital... coming from a smaller Critical Access facility we've found with our system that we don't do things the same as always suggested because of staffing, or how patient care is covered.

Remember, every system has it's quirks. The key is in how you design the information to flow. Don't get caught up in focusing on the "part" that's being deployed at that stage, make sure you have an over-all data continuity of how you want it to ultimately work together in the end.

We currently use Meditech and are continuing to deploy modules, but the facility isn't hiring staff to support/cover before they start doing the project. Plus we have no clinical analyst on staff overseeing how the patient information integrates or ensuring some standard of design, which makes it difficult sometimes because we work harder than necessary.

Hope that helps...

Plus we have no clinical analyst on staff overseeing how the patient information integrates or ensuring some standard of design, which makes it difficult sometimes because we work harder than necessary.

Hope that helps...

It doesn't always matter. We're now integrating a new patient care module onto the older system and the floor nurses have been refusing to use it as fully as they can, AND I got word that the NM thinks I'm a smarty-pants - I kid you not - about computers. Hell-O! Um, like, it's my JOB?

So the flow of the module's pieces isn't nearly as well-thought-out as I'd like, but at least my boss gets it, and is with me on that we can only do so much.

I'm working on a project to compare hospital systems like Cerner, Meditech, MeKesson and Epic.

Does anyone have any experience doing documentation (vitals, assessments, etc.). What can you share about ease or difficulty?

How about entering orders (physician order entry, verbal orders, etc.). What are the big problems? What works well.

Thanks for your help....I'm struggling a little with this project....

It's a bit difficult to perform a flat out comparison. Decide on a specific area and focus your comparisons. For Instance, Meditech has a pathology, blood bank, micro, and lab module. Epic only includes micro and lab w/o any plans to add blood bank or pathology. If you are a smaller facility lack of blood bank and pathology might not be a significant issue. But very often "clinical" staff may "assume" the system has these features - It is IS who needs to be the experts. Once you begin dissecting a system based on features, support, price - you will see the best system for your facility's size and needs BUT NO system is perfect only perfect for you.

If your purpose is define "best of breed" for nursing documentation. You need to consider features that users do not consider. Does the documentation allow for user editing of the documentation templates. What about how queries work. How much space is built into the group responses. Does it allow a right-click menu. How do you sign a document? How do you save / edit documentation?

What I have found problematic about "system" comparisons is a general lack of comparing apples to apples. Users focus on what they see, IS focuses on what the features and how they integrate and hoe the system is supported. I don't know if I could offer you much - I can only tell you what I like / wish were better in the system that I am most familiar with.

I'm a Travel Nurse and have recently been told that a hospital wants only those RNs who know EPIC charting. I have been working with Cernar Citrix. What's the big difference? I was given a 4 hr class and thrown into computer charting 6 months ago.. how much difference is there??

I just finished a two day (8 hours each day) training on Epic and it completely overwhelmed everyone in the room. System has just about anything you can think of but was not impressed with visual display of Epic (looked like we were working in excel). Having training in Sorian also - Sorian blows the doors off Epic in terms of visual display and ease of use. I don't have personal experience with Cernar...maybe someone can chime in on that one.

i've used Cerner, Siemens, and McKesson and to be honest, Siemens is the best of those three, but not by much. Cerner was really slow, McKesson looked hideous and had a weird naming scheme, and Siemens just has waaay too much to click on or over, needs some serious restraint.

Pluses and Minuses all of them.