Cerner HealtheIntent vs. InterSystems TrakCare

Cerner HealtheIntent has been very reliable, as it hardly ever goes down. So it can be counted on. The end-user interface takes some time to get used to and could be better. Modules aren't always easy to find, making doing a certain task a bit cumbersome or taking more time to perform a task.

Incentivized

Well suited if you have no developers and need something up quickly to let users get into patient data. But if you want to go beyond the layout, organization, or access of the application, it’s an uphill battle and doesn’t scale at all. If you want to be able to evolve the product, it’s not easy whatsoever

Incentivized

• Reliability means Cerner HealtheIntent hardly ever goes down
• Cerner HealtheIntent can be customized for our business needs
• We have our own Cerner HealtheIntent server instead of using the cloud

Incentivized

• Quickly get a front end working into patient indexes.
• Integrates with InterSystems products.
• Works with IE well.

Incentivized

• Metadata management in HealtheIntent should be improved. For example, we could find similar looking data sources (for example, diagnosis tables with similar names) but it was hard to distinguish and know which one is the one in production. It was because several data stewards loaded the same table with a different purpose (with similar tables names). And HealtheIntent doesn't have a metadata "for a test" or "for development", which makes hard to manage versions of one data source.
• To run a SQL in HealtheIntent, there is a time limit of only 10 minutes. Also, there is no delicate configuration of query execution. It may not need a lot of functions like Toad or SQL developer, but what HealtheIntent provides is very limited.
• Similar to the one above, HealtheIntent may need better metadata management for users. It is hard to find a table that I need, even to find out the existence of the table. Basic statistics like the size of a table, # of rows may be helpful for users.

Incentivized

• Extensibility of features.
• Custom JavaScript/HTML/CSS support is almost nonexistent.
• Source control has to rely on serialization of entire compiled package of TrakCare instead of individual edited files.
• Transformations should handle everything instead of just non system default code.

Incentivized

InterSystems has great support, however TrakCare is a different experience and their knowledge of that product is far more limited. This is shown through the lack of documentation of the product.

Incentivized

Our organization had run Cerner EMR already so we only had a selection of adding HealtheIntent or not. There was no competitor. There are two aspects behind our decision: one is cost and the other is performance. We could save 50 full-time employee's expense to run our legacy analytics framework. I have no idea of details of the contract to buy and maintain HealtheIntent but generally speaking, it is saving money. Second, performances in terms of populating, processing data in HealtheIntent is way better than that of the legacy system.

Incentivized

• ROI may be depending on the contract. But even if an organization is spending the same money for either homegrown analytics or HealtheIntent, HealtheIntent provides more agility of project or cost spending. If you don't like it you can discontinue anytime.
• The negative one is, HealtheIntent is a new product in Cerner and at this point, it may not be capable of everything like homegrown analytics. The question would be the future of HealtheIntent and will be able to cover what you need soon.
• If an organization is pursuing a standard, generic analytics and reporting (such as the combination of Oracle and Tableau), HealtheIntent is great. If not (for example, running R and d3.js for specific cases), the cost of migration to HealtheIntent will skyrocket.

Incentivized

• Quick results for a new company.
• Costing exponentially more to maintain as we evolve the product.

Incentivized