Home Forums Discussions General Discussion If AC built an online SaaS based solution, would you switch?

Amazing Charts is working on planning and roadmap as we get past this year's required updates. Given the challenges of adding onto our older technology, if...

If AC built a new online-based solution, what are the chances you'd switch, and what are the key features you would require before you switched? (In other words, what's the minimum you would need to consider switching.)

Thanks for your honest input! Feel free to email me privately as well at jbertman@harriscomputer.com!

Jon

How would this be different from the current cloud based AC hosting?

Are we talking essentially new EHR codebase? Online only?

It would not be the way we do it now (which is using Citrix), instead it would be a true web-based solution. Maybe something more like this.

[img]https://app.screencast.com/gNEMhj0YFhXgE[/img]

Code built to natively run over Internet (instead of hosting it on your own machine, or over a virtual network like citrix).

AC would have to prove stability with the platform first. It would need to be cost effective without the constant up charge for services.

I would want to see a system similar to what we have without too many screens and distractions like some of the other programs. AC was built on the fact it is simple to use and has a SOAP note format.

I would want an all inclusive program with EHR, PM, Billing, Patient Portal, Appt reminders, online appointments, telehealth. I do not use UpDox but that seems to be a feature many other users want and need so I would include this service as well so it includes electronic fax.

AC would have to make changing from server(office based) to online a simple, seamless transition. It would need to entail the imported items and an easy way to store old charts if not able to transfer or for inactive patients.

I would want to see some of the recommendations and changes posted n this forum incorporated. There are a lot of good ideas on here that NEED to be implemented. I feel the current version of AC 12.0.0 is at a stand still as we have seen in the past. There are things that seem like simple fixes that are still not incorporated. I know that AC is having to do mandatory, governmental changes but a version 12.0.1then 12.0.2 etc with just simple changes for recommendations made here and on the user conferences would at least show that AC is moving in a direction the user is requesting.

I would agree with all the points that Chris made.
The question is really how big of an audience it would attract over the current user base.
Most physicians are already using an EMR and most are now working with groups that are reticent to change. Even if it's a direct port of the current AC, would it bring enough clients to support it being built.
The current user base would not really want to pay more and the cost of building it would be on us if there are not a lot of new users.

This new online version would need to have an export feature similar to AdvancedMD. In that EMR, you can go to the utilities menu and have your data exported to an Access Database. Unfortunately, it is PM only. Mega bucks for the EMR side.

My expectation is that AC would continue to honor its pledge of not locking people in and provide the Access database export feature of their discreet data and a 7zip file of imported items on demand with a menu click.

I would also expect a copy of the new database schema of this SaaS approach for my review and approval.

JamesNT

Minimum: be able to see all the EHR history we have in AC now (encounter notes, imported items, past orders, medication and Dx history) seamlessly in the new system. Basically having past encounters to look like we've been using this SaaS system the whole time. It can look a little different from any new notes created in the SaaS but it has to be easily accessible, not in a different window, website, archived area, etc.

(I think this is the right direction to go in for AC.)

Jon, the biggest problem with AC is not whether it is run locally or online. The real issue is that we are using a program that was great 15 years ago, less great 5 years ago, and now is well behind the times.

So my answer to "would you switch?" is "how would the program be different"?
Because if it is the same program, it doesn't really make much difference which button I click to run it.

(OK, that is a blunt and over-simplified answer, but it is what I am feeling....).

Everyone,

Make no mistake, the purpose of the Saas (Software as a Service) offering is to SAVE MONEY. Over the past 15 years that I've been helping out with users of Amazing Charts I can tell you that most of the servers people have that they run Amazing Charts from are just crap. Networks are set up in whatever ad hoc way the doctor could get them running. Amazing Charts support spends most of their time troubleshooting networking and not really that much time troubleshooting Amazing Charts.

By moving to a SaaS environment, the only cost AC will have will be whatever Amazon or Azure (Microsoft) charges them for consumption (CPU, storage, RAM). Those tech-support people you've gotten to know over the years? LAID OFF.

Whenever you call tech-support with a connectivity issue to Amazing Charts SaaS, the answer will be "please contact your IT support for further resolution." Internet down? You get to wait.

The good news is for many of you, you won't have to deal with having a SQL Server in your office and you won't have to deal with any more emergency upgrades - or upgrading at all, for that matter. The bad news is your network problems will truly be your own.

James

But we don't want them laid off.

Another feature I would demand to see in this new SaaS offering is a web API to plug into. Other EMRs like Dr. Chrono and AdvancedMD have one. With such an API, third parties can integrate with a client to download/upload demographics, scheduling information, chart information, and other data.

JamesNT

The problem is that we are creatures of habit. Most of us are used to using AC as it has been set up and any change will require relearning the program. The new program has to be familiar to the current user and reliable as has been discussed. This is a tall order

Thus the real issue is what are the advantages. As James points out there will be less network issues, but this is both a blessing and a curse. Any downtime in internet means there is no access to the program. Also what if you move to another platform or retire, what access will you have versus now where the program and database are ours (without of course, the add on services such as prescriptions writing and such).
Updox is a band-aid program. It works but is clunky.

Another requirement of a new program would be the ability to interact with other data entities. Of course there is the government requirement of interoperability, but how well do most EMRs actually accomplish this? There are many IPAs, PHOs, and other ventures that require data to show results and while this is possible with AC, it is still a clunky third program solution. The need for this will only increase in the future.

There are less new and existing primary care practitioners and most are affiliated with groups that have already chosen an EMR. How will AC market to the small community that is looking for an affordable EMR? Specialists use the program as well but not as much and again most will be in groups that have already chosen an EMR.

I run AC on a server in my office and would rather switch EMR systems altogether than move to any web-based service. This way, I maintain some control, I can get input from my IT guy and avoid putting all my eggs in one basket. I am, in principle, opposed to anything web-based. Just look at what they did with QuickBooks—they completely did away with the desktop version. It’s only a matter of time before customers receive an apology letter for a data breach along with a year-long subscription to Equifax credit monitoring.