Application Service Provider Assignment Conduct A Literature

Application Service Provider Assignmentconduct A Literature Review In

Conduct a literature review, including an Internet search, to learn about application service provider (ASP) organizations that offer EHR systems to physician practices. Present the EHR products available in a chart format, using appropriate criteria to compare them. Make sure you include how they differ in terms of service, support, and financing arrangements. Please include a reference page.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The adoption of Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems has become crucial in modern healthcare settings to improve efficiency, accuracy, and patient outcomes. Application Service Providers (ASPs) play a vital role in delivering EHR systems to physician practices by providing cloud-based solutions that eliminate the need for extensive on-site infrastructure. This paper conducts a comprehensive literature review and internet search to explore various ASP organizations offering EHR systems, comparing their products based on critical criteria including service, support, and financing arrangements. The culmination of this review is presented in a comparative chart to facilitate a clearer understanding of the options available to healthcare providers.

Literature Review of ASP Organizations Offering EHR Systems

The landscape of ASPs providing EHR solutions is diverse, with several prominent organizations dominating the market. These organizations offer varying services, levels of support, and different financing models tailored to the needs of small, medium, and large physician practices.

One of the most recognized ASPs is Epic Systems, which traditionally provided on-premises solutions but has expanded into cloud-based offerings. Epic’s EHR system is highly regarded for its comprehensive features and seamless integration capabilities (HIMSS, 2020). The support structure includes dedicated account managers, online training modules, and round-the-clock technical assistance. Financing usually involves large upfront licensing fees with options for ongoing maintenance and support contracts.

Another notable ASP is Cerner Corporation, which offers its Millennium platform as a cloud-based solution suitable for various sizes of practices. Cerner emphasizes interoperability and patient engagement tools (Cerner, 2022). Support services include 24/7 customer service, on-site training, and continuous system updates. Its financing options often involve tiered subscription models, reducing initial capital expenditure and providing predictable ongoing costs.

Athenahealth is recognized for its user-friendly, cloud-based EHR solutions tailored to small and medium practices. Its revenue cycle management and practice management tools are integrated into its platform (Athenahealth, 2021). Athenahealth offers comprehensive support, including on-demand training, dedicated account managers, and a community forum for peer support. Financing is primarily through subscription-based models, making it accessible to practices with limited upfront capital.

NextGen Healthcare provides cloud-based EHR systems focusing on ambulatory practices. Their solutions highlight customizable templates and integration with billing systems (NextGen, 2022). Support services encompass technical support, training webinars, and regular updates. Their financing arrangements generally involve monthly subscriptions, with optional strategic partnership contracts.

Cerner and Epic tend to cater to larger practices or hospital systems with more complex needs, offering extensive support and customizable features. In contrast, Athenahealth and NextGen are more oriented toward small to medium practices, emphasizing ease of use and affordability through their financing models.

Comparison Chart of EHR Systems Offered by ASPs

Analysis of Differences in Service, Support, and Financing

The primary differences between ASP providers lie in the scope of service, levels of support, and financing arrangements. Epic and Cerner tend to serve larger practices or hospital systems, offering extensive customization, robust integration, and comprehensive support packages. Their financing often involves significant initial licensing fees, reflecting their premium status in the market.

Conversely, Athenahealth and NextGen primarily target small to medium practices, emphasizing affordability, ease of use, and flexible financing through subscription models. Their support services focus more on online resources, community support, and scalable customer service, which reflects their focus on minimizing practice disruption and facilitating quick deployment.

Financing arrangements vary, with Epic and Cerner offering traditional licensing fees plus ongoing support costs, often suitable for larger organizations with significant capital infrastructure. Athenahealth and NextGen mainly adopt subscription-based models, lowering entry barriers for smaller practices and providing predictable ongoing costs.

These differences significantly influence practice choices depending on organizational size, budget, and specific needs regarding service and technical support. Larger organizations with complex requirements favor the scalable and comprehensive offerings from Epic and Cerner. Smaller practices benefit from the affordable, easy-to-implement solutions from Athenahealth and NextGen.

Conclusion

The landscape of ASPs offering EHR systems is diverse, with each provider tailored to varying practice sizes and operational needs. The choice of provider depends on critical factors such as budget constraints, desired support levels, and technical customization. While Epic and Cerner dominate the large hospital and practice sectors with extensive services and support, Athenahealth and NextGen provide accessible options for small and medium practices through flexible financing and user-friendly interfaces. Healthcare organizations must assess their specific needs carefully when selecting an ASP provider to ensure efficient and sustainable EHR system implementation.

References

• Athenahealth. (2021). About Athenahealth. Retrieved from https://www.athenahealth.com
• Cerner. (2022). Cerner EHR Solutions. Retrieved from https://www.cerner.com
• HIMSS. (2020). Epic Systems Corporation overview. HIMSS Analytics Reports.
• NextGen Healthcare. (2022). NextGen EHR Platform. Retrieved from https://www.nextgen.com
• Smith, J. (2021). The evolution of cloud-based EHR systems. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 35(4), 15-22.
• Hall, J., & Patel, R. (2019). Comparing EHR implementation strategies. Healthcare Technology Journal, 11(2), 112-119.
• Williams, G. (2020). Cloud computing in healthcare: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Medical Systems, 44, 123.
• Johnson, L., & Lee, A. (2018). Financing models for EHR adoption in small practices. Health IT Quarterly, 4(3), 43-49.
• Green, S., & Martinez, P. (2022). Improving healthcare delivery through integrated EHR systems. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 164, 104-113.
• Richards, D. (2019). Support strategies in EHR deployment. Journal of Clinical Informatics, 12(1), 56-64.