Comparative Analysis of Electronic Health Records

In the world where information technologies play the most important role, one cannot imagine recording information in traditional ways anymore. Paper archives from the past are unreliable, whereas cloud data storages of today offer large amounts of space for little money. As soon as hospitals had been provided with computers, electronic health records emerged on the market to offer reliable data recording. Since the healthcare system constantly experiences shortages in funding, one has to think of budget software for health records that will be efficient and reliable. A user-friendly interface, compatibility with different operational systems and quality customer support are among other features that make such products attractive. For this essay, two electronic health records with an identical price have been selected for comparison. However, because similar prices do not mean the same functions, one product will be eventually proven to be better than the other according to the selected criteria.

 

Type of service

Type of assignment

Title of your paper *

Academic level

Pages

Timeframe

Spacing

Currency

  Order now

As it has been mentioned before, the best electronic medical record will be a relatively cheap one. The website www.softwareadvice.com was used for finding two similarly priced software products for comparison: iSalus and MediTouch EHRs (Software Advice, 2016). They have been studied on their official websites. The iSalus EHR is advertised in a very user-friendly way: a potential customer is offered to learn about the software by its specialty, product pricing, as well as requesting a demo (iSalus Healthcare, 2016). The demo request form does not look too lengthy, which is always a plus. iSalus main selling points are an all-in-one comprehensive solution, presence of an official certification, affordability and caring customer support. The MediTouch EHR website is more like a homepage for people already using this software; it is generally harder to navigate with lots of active buttons to click, but there is no obvious way of getting information about MediTouch (HealthFusion, 2016). When the page with the EHR is finally accessed, it offers some lucrative perspectives of receiving bonus money for referring a colleague to MediTouch. It also boasts of the same type of certification, but other selling points are left unclear. One can only easily find a button of requesting a demo version, but it has many fields to fill out, and it may repulse some customers (HealthFusion, 2016).

iSalus only operates on the Windows operational system, which can make it less popular (iSalus Healthcare, 2016). In contrast, MediTouch has been developed for tablets with a touch-screen user interface. It creates a considerable advantage for this product. Tablets are becoming increasingly cheaper and are more mobile than computers. Both software products are web-based and do not require app installation. They can be operated through a browser. However, due to information being cloud-stored, one may expect some lag-time before accessing data (HealthFusion, 2016).

What concerns user-friendliness, iSalus provides multiple videos that help customers to get acquainted with the software at early stages, as well as use its more sophisticated features, such as filling out billing information (iSalus Healthcare, 2016). MediTouch offers similar customer-friendly options, but its videos are longer on average and seem more chaotic than those of iSalus. Moreover, the MediTouch EHR is not only advertised as software for doctors, but also for patients. The HealthFusion Company (2016) promises better experience for both parties and some unique features such as patient’s voice recognition for reading verbal cues. Both software solutions offer chronic care management as a bonus to the standard set of services; iSalus also emphasizes the availability of reminders to patients about appointments that can also be used via the system.

Stay Connected

Live Chat Order now

Overall, it is hard to judge which EHR has proven to be more reliable just from the comparison of the way two products are advertised. Because American users are very reliant on external support when they purchase, advertising strong customer support is a winning selling point for iSalus. However, this EHR still has a major point of improvement, namely, being inaccessible for use on the Macintosh operational system. In the light of great popularity of Apple products for the last years, this creates a big disadvantage for the company. iSalus also lists other features in a clearer way and has a much shorter demo version request form. However, it would be hasty to recommend this product as a universal option because needs of users differ considerably, but in the context of this framework iSalus software seems to be more reliable and easy to use.