Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Health 2.0 EMR API report

17,181 views

Published on

With support from California Health Care Foundation, earlier this year (2016) Health 2.0 surveyed over 100 small health tech companies to ask their experiences integrating with specific EMR vendors.

Published in: Healthcare

Health 2.0 EMR API report

  1. 1. report generated by: API Survey Results
  2. 2. generated report for Q1: How vital is it for your product/service to integrate with an EMR? Sample size represents number of verified respondents that began the survey, but not all 108 completed the survey in its entirety. There was significant drop off following question five, which was the last question on one page before respondents moved on to a long and difficult page of questions involving specific vendors. Where possible, we've presented the largest sample size of data for any given question, though we also compared the larger sample size to the group of 75 respondents that completed the survey in full. Overall, the smaller sample of respondents that completed the survey reflected a similar distribution when compared to the corresponding larger sample sizes. Total Respondents: 108 Vital Nice to have Optional Unncessary 37% 40 2% 2 13% 14 48% 52
  3. 3. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q2: Has your company attempted an integration with an EMR vendor? Again, this sample size represents the number of verified respondents that began the survey. Respondents who began the survey but did not complete it were contacted and given an opportunity to finish the survey; some did, others did not. Total Respondents: 108 30% No: 32 70% Yes: 76
  4. 4. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for
  5. 5. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q3: We define four levels of integration. Please select one of the following that best describes the extent of your integration attempt(s). Sample size represents number of verified respondents that began the survey, indicated they had experience integrating with EMRs, but not all completed the survey. Total Respondents: 73 8% (6) 33% (24) 27% (20) 32% (23) Extracting data from the EMR for a proprietary application (i.e. read) Extracting data from the EMR and inserting data back into the EMR (i.e. read and write) Extract data, insert data back into the EMR, and make a change within the vendor system (i.e. read, write, and change) Bring in your own external data & combine it with data generated by vendor system, manipulate/analyze it and make a change
  6. 6. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q4: How many integrations has your company attempted? Total Respondents: 73 1 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20+ 63% (46) 18% (13) 1% (1) 3% (2) 15% (11)
  7. 7. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q5: Which EMR vendors have you integrated with? 49% 20% 19% 12% 39%33% Respondents: 34 Respondents: 23 49% Respondents: 34 Respondents: 14 Respondents: 8 17% Respondents: 12 Respondents: 13 Respondents: 27 20% Respondents: 14 Total Respondents: 69 Note that respondents were able to select more than one vendor. The mean number of integrations per respondent is 2.5, while the median number of integrations is 3. Other: Greenway, Practice Fusion, drchrono, Care Cloud, QRS, PointClickCare
  8. 8. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q6: How did you integrate? Respondents: 26 Respondents: 16 Respondents: 25 Respondents: 8 Respondents: 24 Respondents: 13 Total Respondents: 46 Accessed Vendor API Used 3rd Party Integration Engine Used Batch or Non-API Data Exchange Used Direct or Other Protocol 19% (5) 19% (5) 19% (5) 42% (11) 25% (4) 25% (4) 19% (3) 31% (5) 16% (4) 8% (2) 4% (1) 72% (18) 38% (5) 23% (3) 15% (2) 23% (3) 17% (4) 4% (1) 4% (1) 75% (18) 25% (2) 50% (4) 25% (2) Respondents: 12 Respondents: 6 Respondents: 14 33% (4) 17% (2) 33% (4) 17% (2) 33% (2) 17% (1) 33% (2) 17% (1) 29% (4) 36% (5) 14% (2) 21% (3)
  9. 9. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q7: Was a large provider client necessary to engage a vendor in a conversation about accessing data? 30% 70% 59% 69% 41% 31% 46% 54% 46% 54% 56% 44% 53% 47% 80% 20% 74% 26% Respondents: 27 | No: 8 // Yes: 19 Respondents: 17 | No: 10 // Yes: 7 Respondents: 26 | No: 18 // Yes: 8 YesNo Respondents: 13 | No: 6 // Yes: 7 Respondents: 9 | No: 5 // Yes: 4 Respondents: 15 | No: 8 // Yes: 7 Respondents: 10 | No: 8 // Yes: 2 Respondents: 23 | No: 17 // Yes: 6 Respondents: 13 | No: 6 // Yes: 7
  10. 10. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for 30% 70% 59%41% 69%31% Respondents: 27 | Yes: 10 // No: 17 Respondents: 16 | Yes: 5 // No: 11 Respondents: 26 | Yes: 20 // No: 6 Yes No Respondents: 17 | Yes: 3 // No: 14 Respondents: 9 | Yes: 1 // No: 8 Respondents: 16 | Yes: 6 // No: 10 Respondents: 10 | Yes: 3 // No: 7 Respondents: 24 | Yes: 18 // No: 6 Respondents: 17 | Yes: 7 // No: 10 Q8: Would you say vendors were generally supportive of your integration efforts? 63%37% 23%77% 25%75% 18% 82% 13% 87% 38% 62%
  11. 11. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q9: Was there a fee associated with accessing a vendor API? 67% 33% 64% 36% 46% 54% 54% 46% 77% 23%71% 29% Respondents: 24 | No: 16 // Yes: 8 Respondents: 14 | No: 9 // Yes: 5 Respondents: 24 | No: 11 // Yes: 13 YesNo Respondents: 10 | No: 5 // Yes: 5 Respondents: 8 | No: 6 // Yes: 2 Respondents: 14 | No: 10 // Yes: 4 Respondents: 8 | No: 6 // Yes: 2 Respondents: 24 | No: 13 // Yes: 11 Respondents: 13 | No: 10 // Yes: 3 75% 25% 75% 25% 50% 50% In a subsequent question, respondents were asked about the specific dollar amount of any associated fees. Where there was a fee, respondents indicated it was usually less than $25,000. However some respondents claimed that for Epic, Cerner, GE, athenahealth, and Allscripts sometimes the fee was upward of $50,000. It is also worth noting that respondents mentioned many vendors sought some type of revenue share agreement and that CommonWell fees were around $50,000, which in theory should connect startups to many vendors in the space.
  12. 12. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q10: Overall, would you say EMR vendors helped or hindered the integration process? 22% 52%48% 65%35% 29%71% 14%86% 57%43% 40%60% 41%59% 53%47% 78% Respondents: 27 | Helped: 13 // Hindered: 14 Respondents: 17 | Helped: 6 // Hindered: 11 Respondents: 7 | Helped: 5 // Hindered: 2 Respondents: 15 | Helped: 7 // Hindered: 8 Respondents: 5 | Helped: 3 // Hindered: 2 Respondents: 17 | Helped: 10 // Hindered: 7 Respondents: 14 | Helped: 6 // Hindered: 8Respondents: 23 | Helped: 18 // Hindered: 5 Helped Hindered Respondents: 23 | Helped: 19 // Hindered: 3
  13. 13. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q11: How would you rate the ease of access to any partner programs provided by EMR vendors? Respondents: 27 Respondents: 15 Respondents: 27 Respondents: 14 Respondents: 7 Respondents: 16 Respondents: 9 Respondents: 23 Respondents: 13 Program exists; easy to understand Program exists; enrolling somewhat complicated Non-existent programs; difficult to enroll 52% (14) 15% (4) 33% (9) 64% (9) 14% (2) 21% (3) 56% (5) 11% (1) 33% (3) 9% (2) 43% (10) 48% (11) 62% (8) 15% (2) 23% (3) 57% (4) 14% (1) 29% (2) 44% (7) 25% (4) 31% (5) 47% (7) 13% (2) 40% (6) 11% (3) 44% (12) 48% (13)
  14. 14. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Q12: How would you rate the quality of any vendor APIs you gained access to in the course of the integration process? Respondents: 25 Respondents: 11 Respondents: 24 Respondents: 10 Respondents: 6 Respondents: 13 Respondents: 7 Respondents: 25 Respondents: 11 High technical quality, relatively easy to work with Not great, but workable Poorly designed APIs 24% (6) 28% (7) 48% (12) 50% (5) 10% (1) 40% (4) 14% (1) 14% (1) 71% (5) 8% (2) 60% (15) 32% (8) 36% (4) 18% (2) 45% (5) 33% (2) 17% (1) 50% (3) 38% (5) 23% (3) 38% (5) 27% (3) 27% (3) 45% (5) 8% (2) 25% (6) 67% (16)
  15. 15. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for
  16. 16. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Please describe why you haven’t integrated with an EMR. Total Respondents: 29 48% (14) 21% (6) 7% (2) 41% (12) Application does not need integration to add value Have attempted to integrate, but process was too difficult Other integration engine means direct integration is not necessary Too costly generated report for
  17. 17. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Is there other medical data stored in an EMR that could enrich this application or improve the user experience? Yes No 10%90% Respondants: 29 | Yes: 26 // No: 3 generated report for
  18. 18. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Would the patient benefit from his/her professional care team receiving data from this application via (or in combination with) the EMR? 10%90% Respondants: 29 | Yes: 26 // No: 3 Yes No generated report for
  19. 19. Yes! We’ve Intergrated. No. We haven’t. generated report for Are there other crucial functionalities that could be added via an EMR integration (i.e. scheduling, notifications, messaging)? Yes No 10%90% Respondants: 29 | Yes: 26 // No: 3 generated report for

×