Wir helfen Unternehmen in Deutschland
seit 15 Jahren bei der Softwareauswahl

Über CPSI EHR

EHR-Design, um die Patientenversorgung in ländlichen und Gemeindekrankenhäusern sowie in Krankenhäusern, die Teil des Critical-Access-Hospital-Programms sind, zu verbessern.

Erfahre mehr über CPSI EHR

Vorteile:

CPSI EHR is a decent product...provides specific functionality however its integration capability with third party product is limited.

Nachteile:

It is difficult to produce a new form. Lots of steps and a lot of going back and forth between charts.

Bewertungen zu CPSI EHR

Durchschnittliche Bewertung

Benutzerfreundlichkeit
2,3
Kundenservice
2,8
Funktionen
2,1
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis
2,4

Weiterempfehlungsquote

3,9/10

CPSI EHR hat eine Gesamtbewertung von 2,3 von 5 Sternen basierend auf 22 Nutzerbewertungen auf Capterra.

Nutzerbewertungen filtern (22)

Sortieren nach

Hast du CPSI EHR bereits verwendet?

Teile deine Erfahrungen mit anderen Softwareinteressenten.

Nutzerbewertungen filtern (22)

Verifizierter Rezensent
Verifizierter Nutzer auf LinkedIn
Gesundheit, Wellness & Fitness, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 1 Jahr
Herkunft der Bewertung

CPSI System

5,0 vor 5 Jahren

Kommentare: Overall it is effective and good for our clinic.

Vorteile:

Ease of use, very easy to navigate through this system. I have used many other systems and find this to be my favorite so far.

Nachteile:

I have not found anything that I dislike about CPSI. I find it a great product for the needs of our company.

Verifizierter Rezensent
Verifizierter Nutzer auf LinkedIn
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 51–200 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 1 Jahr
Herkunft der Bewertung

Evident - Not the easiest to use but it gets the job done.

4,0 vor 5 Jahren

Vorteile:

Evident was easy to use and is one of the better EHR systems out there.

Nachteile:

-Front end that everyone sees looks old, unlike competitors who have updated. -Some options and settings seem like they were just placed where ever because it doesn't make sense. -Small bugs that haven't been fixed in years. For instance, checking a box doesn't work when full screen. You need to take it out of full screen check the box then maximize it again.

Matthew
Physician in USA
Medizinische Praxis, 11–50 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

Avoid at all Costs

1,0 vor 5 Jahren

Kommentare: I've used this on both the inpatient and outpatient sides. Avoid it like the plague. On the outpatient side, it either lacks common features like online scheduling or a kiosk/tablet mode, or you have to pay extra for them (electronic prescribing, ob templates--even the module to meat meaningful use reporting costs extra!). The scheduling display works on the heisenberg principle-- you can tell what room your patient is in, or how long they've been there, but not both (in fact, it doesn't even tell you what time they checked in, just how long they've been there). The interface is clunky (it takes 8-12 clicks just to refill a med, which is bad because refill requests are BY MED, not patient, so if a patient has several meds, they're on your list several times. Oh, and you can't change the order of most displayed stuff like patients), and doesn't intrinsically support things like macro templates ("dot phrases"), but their built in templates are horrible. Granted, the company customer service is good and will "customize" things, but I would hope that by default an EHR would include things like procedure code entry without having to "customize" it, but it doesnt (on billing, you can't even add modifiers by default!). Likewise, there's no crosswalk for adequate icd-10 specificity coding, or to help capture HCC modifications. If it's in use at a facility where it also serves as inpatient EHR, anything you do in one location will affect the other. So, if the ER starts a patient's med rec fresh (as they should) it will (literally) erase the clinic medication list, so you have to re-match meds when refill requests come in. It is also incredibly buggy. We've had entire days go by where we couldn't complete charts. Their customer service is usually good, and things usually get fixed quickly, but bugs pop up so frequently that we've just gotten used to them, or having to reboot in the middle of charting. If this thing were a medical device, no reasonable person would let it around patients. I think the thing that best represents this software to me is the search icon. Spyglass icon-- click to search, right? Nope. You have to click on a tiny spot to the upper right of the icon, not the icon itself, to get it to work. It has been like that literally FOR YEARS and the fact that it hasn't been fixed makes the developers seem lazy. Oh, and although customer service is usually good, training was abysmal-- the trainer we got could tell us where buttons were, but not how to do a workflow (she didn't even know what a workflow was) or how "other" clinics got around problems. Also, be aware that at some times, the company has "demo'ed" software or features that AREN'T available yet. I'm sure most customers get it "because it's cheap," but that's just not true. Excluding even losses due to decreased efficiency or extra personnel time, there are TONS of better EMRs (at least on the clinic side) that are cheaper than their initial and licensing costs, and by the time you pay more for those features (like meaningful use reporting modules!) that are necessary or expected, you're paying MORE for a system that everyone hates. DO NOT buy this just because it's cheap or you're used to their other products. Do a proper head to head vetting against other options and you'll likely see that you are probably better served getting something else.

Vorteile:

Customer service is great. Which is good, because you'll be using them a lot based on how buggy it is

Nachteile:

Slow and unreliable. Lacks a lot of features, or you have to pay extra. Built on "episodes," not an intuitive narrative, so it's hard to see the whole of a patient's history without clicking through multiple layers of interface

Cathy
LPTA in USA
Medizinische Praxis, 51–200 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

The system that does not communicate with any other of the most popular hospital platform software systems.

2,0 vor 6 Jahren

Vorteile:

The same eforms can be used in IP and OP settings. The system will allow for faxing straight from the system but the forms have to be set up as such to have the patient's name and demographics on each page and we haven't figured out how to do this yet.

Nachteile:

The system is a nursing platform and does not keep up with the requirements of Medicare. It does not track therapy cap, number of visits before g-code update, does not check charges and time related to them before sending on to billing. The eforms are customizable to a point but do not allow for a flow of information without having to build them in step by step. There are no templates available that you can make your own with changes. They have to be built one step at a time with little latitude about what actions you can use.

Maarten
Hospital Specialist in Aruba
Medizinische Praxis, 51–200 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 1 Jahr
Herkunft der Bewertung

Stay away from this EMR if you want your patients to stay alive

1,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: Having been working in different hospitals with EMR's which worked average to good this system is just SHOCKING. A 5 y/o child could develop a better EMR. Almost everything works counterintuitively; there's no overview at all; interactions are not given appropriately. The system was so terrible to use that in the end more than 90% of my colleagues decided to revert back to the old paper file. Even paper files are better than this system. In the sake of patient safety, I would never buy this software.

Vorteile:

It's an electronic system.. But by far the worst EMR I've ever experienced.

Nachteile:

Having been working in different hospitals with EMR's which worked average to good this system is just SHOCKING. A 5 y/o child could develop a better EMR. Almost everything works counterintuitively; there's no overview at all; interactions are not given appropriately. The system was so terrible to use that, in the end, more than 90% of my colleagues decided to revert back to the old paper file. Even paper files are better than this system.

Ian
IT Support Specialist in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 51–200 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung

Update needed

3,0 letztes Jahr

Kommentare: Overall it was fair to middling in ease of use and application for what we used it as. While clunky and old looking it was actually easier to use than our new application (CERNER)

Vorteile:

The customer support was top notch, i assume that's from a lot of practice as i imagine they get a lot of calls. After hours service was prompt as well

Nachteile:

The interface is so dated, it appears to be pre 2000 era. Configuring some back end stuff just goes against common instinct for IT administrators. That said its a learning curve. once you have done it 10 times it shouldnt be a problem

Mark
emergency physician in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 1 Jahr
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

The worst EHR I have ever used

1,0 vor 6 Jahren

Kommentare: I am an Emergency physician with 33 years experience and have used double digits of different EHRs, I refuse to work facilities that use it and I know double digits of other physicians who also refuse. I also know several facilities that have been forced to install a different EHR for the ED when the inpatient uses CPSI : they were unable to staff the ED until that change was made.

Vorteile:

There are NONE. This system is designed for billing and does not assist doctors or any other staff to document things actually CLINICALLY relevant.

Nachteile:

Very cumbersome, cannot document pertinent negatives, exceptionally time consuming, the "search " function is only a spelling matching function, you cannot find something if you do not already know what name CPSI uses, in which case no search is needed.

Chris
Director of Strategic Planning in
, 1.001–5.000 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

Simplistic but functional

3,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: I would recommend this software for smaller hospitals that don't have access to the financing requirements of a better product. It will get the job done.

Vorteile:

This software gets the job done. It doesn't have a lot of frills and there are several processes that are drawn out and convoluted. But it gets the job done for a fraction of the price.

Nachteile:

It's slow. And pulling data out the back end is long and drawn out. But again, it gets the job done for a fraction of the price.

Michael
Physical Therapist in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: 6-12 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung

Difficult to learn and not intuitive

2,0 vor 8 Monaten

Kommentare: This has been the most challenging EHR I have used for inpatient hospital records/documentation

Vorteile:

Ability to have multiple patient charts open at the same time.

Nachteile:

Very difficult to navigate, not an intuitive user interface. It took me over a month to become comfortable enough to use for documentation. Frequent need of site to connect to server while using

DEBBIE
Home Health Supervisor in
Medizinische Praxis, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

CPSI DOES NOT WORK

1,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: WE ARE LOOKING AT REPLACING CPSI

Vorteile:

THERE ARE NO PROS FOR CPSI. NOTHING. IT DOES NOT WORK MOST OF THE TIME. IT IS NOT A FUNCTIONING PRODUCT

Nachteile:

UNABLE TO WORK IN REAL TIME, ONLY HAVE NURSING NOTES, NO OTHER DISCIPLINES. NO WAY TO RUN REPORTS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO MY JOB. NO BILLING OPTION

Anne
OR Director in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung

CPSI

4,0 vor 5 Jahren

Kommentare: I love being able to audit charts just by going into one screen

Vorteile:

If you know where the information is located it is easily found and accessible. Also it is very easy to keep a running record.

Nachteile:

It is difficult to produce a new form. Lots of steps and a lot of going back and forth between charts.

Cheryl
Clinical Laboratory Scientist in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung

Could be better...

3,0 vor 5 Jahren

Vorteile:

It is affordable, and once you're used to it, it is relatively easy to use.

Nachteile:

The screens are a bit clumsy to use, with too many choices on one screen....not simple enough.

Les
Registered Nu6 in USA
Medizinische Praxis, 501–1.000 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: 1-5 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung

Low cost, low quality, low usability

1,0 vor 2 Jahren

Kommentare: Too many clicks. Narratives do not flow. Program does not follow or support actual workflow

Vorteile:

So far nothing works with anything smoothly

Nachteile:

To many repeated inputs. Glitch communication with other products. Confusing and fussy GUI.

Gerard
MD- provider in
Medizinische Praxis, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

very time consuming

2,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: I would not buy this system again

Vorteile:

not many..it covers the inpatient hospital patients and the clinic patients but it is very hard to maneuver, takes multiple clicks of the mouse just to get basic flow through he record but it will eventually get you there

Nachteile:

lots it takes way too many clicks to navigate through a patient visit. very time consuming and limits the number of patients I can see in a day to just about half of what I used to see when we wrote or dictated notes.

Gil
USA
Verwendete die Software für: Nicht angeboten
Herkunft der Bewertung

Antiquated EMR Software

2,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: I "inherited" this system for outpatient use when I was hired by my local hospital in 2013 and it has been 3+ years of dealing with one headache after another. Here are just a few examples of its limitations: you can only view one record at a time, limited space when typing, scanning in a patient's record takes too much time, you cannot remove accidentally entered diagnoses from the narrative, the medications do not have defaults with them so you have to choose everything (form, route, frequency, etc), and best of all, it crashes often. I could say more, but I hope what I given is enough to make you look elsewhere. By the way, I saw the latest offering from Evident that is replacing CPSI. It's called Thrive. It solved a few issues, but ultimately, is still not much better. My thought is if you choose it, It'll force you to "thrive" on the patience you'll build up as you use it over time! FWIW, my hospital finally bit the bullet and is replacing it. Also, the hospital learned in the process that four other locations had done the same.

lisa
HR Assistant in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 201–500 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung

CPSI

4,0 vor 3 Jahren

Kommentare: I do not use the EHR side of it.

Vorteile:

Although I really only use it for the payroll & accounts side of things, It is very easy to navigate around.

Nachteile:

The hospital has used this for many years with little trouble. I don't have anything to say negative about CPSI.

shelly
RMA in
Medizinische Praxis, 11–50 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

accesibility

3,0 vor 7 Jahren

Vorteile:

I like the fact that if you forget to add a vital in, it prompts you if you try to close out document

Nachteile:

you cannot add your own documents to the system. you can only use what they have. We switch up documents to make things better so we have to order paper documents

Christina
Critical Care RN in USA
Krankenhausversorgung & Gesundheitswesen, 51–200 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: 1-5 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung

Worst system I've used so far

1,0 vor 5 Jahren

Kommentare: No good don't buy it. I have used multiple different systems as an agency nurse. This is, by far, THE WORST.

Vorteile:

It keeps me employed? I'm an ICU contract nurse. This terrible charting system would make me quit my job if I had to use it all the time.

Nachteile:

Nothing makes sense. Fifty screens to click through to access information. No prompts to remember ANYTHING. It's like charting on an excel spreadsheet and then putting the printed files into the trash to sort through later.

Bonnie
Office Manager in USA
Medizinische Praxis
Verwendete die Software für: 6-12 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

CPSI Software

1,0 vor 8 Jahren

Vorteile:

Nothing there is absolutely nothing good I can say about CPSI software.

Nachteile:

difficulty to use, not user friendly, requires too much time to document, TOO outdated, cannot get updates to hit 21st century demands

Gil
USA
Verwendete die Software für: Nicht angeboten
Herkunft der Bewertung

Give this a try if you want to indulge in self-abuse.

2,0 vor 8 Jahren

Kommentare: Limitation after limitation... can only open one chart at a time, can't go straight to med list without going through a patient visit, anybody can open your note and change it, limited amount of characters per field, is not mistake friendly when you add a diagnosis that shouldn't be there, to add labs, radiology workup, etc is tedious. I could go on and on. Look elsewhere!

Stephen
Stephen
Small business owner in USA
Medizinische Praxis, Selbstständig
Verwendete die Software für: 6-12 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung

CPSI is Ok at best

3,0 vor 7 Jahren

Kommentare: Used it every once and a while when I had to but did not like the product. Had another product that did something similar and so I used it more

Nachteile:

Poorly designed and not user friendly. Much easier to use another product that we had access to.

Paul
CEO in USA
Medizinische Praxis
Verwendete die Software für: 1-5 Monate
Herkunft der Bewertung
Quelle: SoftwareAdvice

CPSI EHR Review

2,5 vor 8 Jahren

Vorteile:

CPSI EHR is a decent product...provides specific functionality however its integration capability with third party product is limited.

Nachteile:

Does not integrate well with third party applications