One platform's reviewer base is overwhelmingly enterprise and Hospital and Health Care specifically, within Health Care, which lines up directly with large integrated systems.
Epic: a reviewer's own title sums up the core value directly, centralizing patient records and improving care coordination, since specialists across a health system can see the same up to date chart instead of requesting records that get lost in a fax queue somewhere. Reviewers do note that Epic's many different ways to accomplish the same task can complicate staff training, and the specific build a hospital runs can vary widely in polish from one health system to the next.
Would be useful to hear from large health systems directly here: did care coordination actually improve measurably after go-live, or did it take a long transition period before the benefits outweighed the training burden?
##### Post Metadata - Posted at: 16 days ago - Author title: Marketing - Net upvotes: 1 ## Comments ### Comment 1 For large integrated health systems, the bigger question is whether the platform improves coordination across specialties, facilities, and care settings without creating too much workflow variation. I’d compare shared-chart visibility, referral and handoff workflows, interoperability, and how much local customization complicates training and standardization after go-live. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: 7 days ago - Author title: Marketing Executive ## Related discussions - [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 6 - [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 0 - [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 4