How 6 ambulatory EHR providers stack up

Athenahealth: integrated and interoperable

Athenahealth is known for offering a comprehensive, integrated suite of tools that are regularly upgraded to meet evolving industry needs. Clients consistently praised the user-friendly interfaces and strong interoperability features. However, some customers reported that specialty workflows need improvement, and that implementation challenges led to workflow disruptions. Others voiced frustration with inconsistent support and unexpected additional costs.

Athenahealth received a B-minus overall performance score, with 77% of customers either satisfied or highly satisfied.

eClinicalWorks: an affordable entry point

Lower initial licensing costs make eClinicalWorks attractive to budget-conscious organizations, but customers reported feeling "nickel-and-dimed" later on when adding new features. The products are continuously developed and updated — both a benefit and source of frustration as users reported buggy updates that disrupted workflows. A standout benefit is the integrated EHR and PM within a cloud based infrastructure. On the downside, clients reported inconsistent customer support and limited training. 

The overall performance score was a C-minus, with 62% of eClinicalWorks customers either satisfied or highly satisfied. 

Epic: large practice leader with small practice options

Epic emphasizes innovation, user-friendliness and customizability. It includes integrated features that reduce the need for third-party tools. Community Connect enables small practices to access the system through host organizations, though depending on hosts to rollout customizations can limit flexibility. Epic's technical support is robust, but it's not immune to workflow disruptions with updates. For smaller practices, the high cost of ownership is a significant barrier. 

Epic received a B-minus overall performance score, with 84% of customers either satisfied or highly satisfied — the highest in the group.

Greenway Health: user-friendly, but with persistent challenges

While Greenway Health offers user-friendly navigation, customizable documentation and decent virtual care tools, customers say it lacks modern technology compared to competitors. Integration capabilities are outdated, and users report ongoing struggles with customer service. They also cite cost increases for added features and limited technical support. 

Greenway Health's overall performance score is D-minus, with 34% of users either satisfied or highly satisfied.

NextGen: strong core capabilities, room for improvement

NextGen is known for its customizability and broad integration options, which support a cohesive suite of financial and clinical tools with robust reporting and analytic capabilities. Users liked the all-in-one feel, but some described the interface as clunky and nonintuitive. Additionally, implementation gaps and inconsistent training left some users feeling unprepared.

NextGen earned a C-minus with 55% of users either satisfied or highly satisfied.

Veradigm: straightforward, but archaic design

Veradigm performs well in claims management and revenue cycle services and is straightforward to use. But clients described the design and functionality as archaic. Some were cautiously optimistic that recent product changes and new leadership could mean a shift toward greater innovation.

Veradigm earned a D overall performance score, with 43% of users either satisfied or highly satisfied.

Elizabeth Stricker, BSN, RN, comes from a nursing and healthcare leadership background, and covers health technology and leadership trends for B2B audiences.