All information is in one place, easily accessible. Expirable reports are easy to run and it is easy to keep things up to date. Queries and reports can be easily customized to what you need.

The ability to write and customize reports and queries to what we need. We are soon to move to App Central and are looking forward to that functionality. The different modules that are offered are great.

Really I cannot say anything bad about the software. User friendly. The only con I have is not related to the software - it is technical support. In the past I could never say about word a tech support, they were awesome. Now tech support if very bad. Normally the phone does not get answered, you have to leave a voice mail that some times is returned and some times not. Then there are some tech support people that cannot help you. In the past you would call, your call would be quickly answered and your problem was quickly fixed allowing you to move on with your work. Definitely not the case any more. This has been going on for months and months with no improvement noted.

There are tons of little time savers that add up to a lot of efficiency. OIG sweeps, dashboards, links to NPPES and state licensing boards, ability to scan and screenshot documents straight into Cactus, NPDB queries, robust query tools, groups, workbooks, user-defined fields, databases of institutions, mail merge documents, contact log - it's all great!

The web-based version gave lots of improvements. I love the customer service! They are very responsive to their customers' needs. I love many things - easy queries, user-defined fields, NPDB access, scanning and screen shots directly into the software, dashboard!

They changed to a proprietary word processor instead of Word. There are things I can't do, and when I went to alter a Word document that I had created in Visual Cactus, it completely messed it up and made it unusable. I also find flat files more confusing than in Visual Cactus.

Upper management talks the talk, but are not good with follow through.

Trainers are good and so is support, but the initial build of the system and clean up from conversion is the client's responsibility - very time consuming.

-LEMM (web crawler) only works for MD/DO state licensure boards, it will not perform web crawls for DPM, DDS, etc. Also, the LEMM "bucket" (after it has performed a webcrawl and results sent back) has to be cleaned out daily. It's like having another email inbox to manage, and saving the results to the system for each individual provider. Very time consuming. -OIG/SAM query - you can do a monthly sweep of the entire medical staff, but it will not provide a report to show evidence of completion. -Mass uploads - when large groups renew malpractice insurance, you can only do a mass update to change the expiration date, you cannot mass upload the certificate of insurance (COI) to each provider in the group. It's a manual process to save the COI to each practitioner's file. -Uploading documents - what symplr refers to as images - you can click on a PDF file from your computer and drag it over into the system, but you cannot click/drag/drop a PDF from an email attachment. You have to save the email attachment to your computer, then click/drag/drop. Extra step. -Primary Source Verification - you can go to various Board, NPI, etc. websites and the system will create a PDF to be saved to a practitioners file; however, this feature will not work for AMA/AOIA website. Same extra step as above. -Letters -have to create your own letters and forms (affiliation, peer reference) within the system-functionality is the same as Microsoft Word, but it's not Word-very cumbersome.

System integration, better departmental communication, excellent informational tracking and accountability of task completion.

Provides a "one-stop-shop" for many needs and minimizes monotonous data entry through auto-population. Allows for simplified processes for credentialing and onboarding/physician relations.

I think my con would be not having adequate training on how to use all of the features. However, I do not think this is a software issues, just an issue with how the system was set up, implemented, and educationally developed. If I knew about the features that we had original capability, it would have been better utilized over the past two years.

Ability to track in Credentialing instances what verifications have been sent out and received. Ability to create widgets on the dashboard and track upcoming expirables is a great feature.

For a short period of time at a previous job, I used another credentialing software. The one thing I liked about that software was the auto verification and summary of those auto verifications at a glance to know OIG, SAM, Licenses, DEAs, ABMS were all automatically verified or all able to be ordered in a batch at any time. Cactus does have that functionality to some extent, but I think there is room for improvement.

We're able to get the job done eventually

Dashboard, creating queries is easier (except one issue - note in Cons), it looks pretty. The pros do not outweigh the cons - a lot of functionality and speed was lost with Web Cactus. We have 18 entities, most of whom refuse to use web Cactus. We have put in requests with issues and even a few enhancement requests, which I've listed in the Cons below.

Cannot view multiple forms at the same time, VERY slow due to web-based, Reports keep breaking, queries come out funky sometimes - extra almost-blank lines (does not happen in Visual Cactus), sections that collapse can be "dangerous" - accidentally collapse something and a whole section is forgotten, excessive mouse usage - VC allowed us to tab and use arrow buttons to move around and use space bar to toggle checkboxes on and off, Running reports and documents is excruciatingly slow, editing Word documents is buggy, adjusting the light/dark contrast must be reconfigured every day, attaching documents to specialties is too complex, Updated crystal reports in Web Cactus does not carry over to VC and vice-versa, Fields in Web Cactus were moved around and even renamed which makes the transition from Visual to Web very painful, Verification Date and Verified By disappear when the Verified checkbox is unchecked, we are not able to delete NPDBs from Web Cactus which come back as an error - It works fine in VC.

As stated above NPDB in Web based CACTUS. We have resolved a printer issue in CACTUS, however, with most of our issues our IT team figures out a work around to the problem. We feel since we are paying for this that CACTUS should be solving these problems. It took a month or more for them to solve the issue around a mandatory update with NPDB.

1. CAQH module (extra fee to have implemented) 2. NPDB Malpractice information loaded and able to copy in Visual CACTUS but not in Web Based. 3. Queries we can run for our specific needs 4. More cost effective for our needs than our IT component building something similar.

1. Customer service has decreased drastically since being taken over by Symplr. 2. We put Web based CACTUS into test 4 years ago and still have not put it into production due to the functionality not meeting our needs or what we have in Visual CACTUS today. 3. Delayed implementations, ie NPDB that required us to manually input provider data into NPDB vs using CACTUS autofill process resulting in more time to process applications. 4. We always test the product before implementation and feel like we find problems for them and we would rather have a partnership where we could test prior to the release. As stated earlier we have been testing Web based CACTUS for 4 years.

The software has a lot to offer in terms of maintenance however, it's difficult to look at pros right now considering my comments below. There are some good tracking options and I do like that we can call for support although lately the support has fallen short.

Overall, the software is good, but there are numerous glitches such as making an entry in the cred verification screen can affect other screens and roll back dates which wipes out the new entry. I am not able to send an email through cactus which I was able to do previously and support has not been able to fix this after hours on the phone with them. Lastly, we should be able to go from one screen and function to another without having to close out each time. For example, if I a running some documents from cactus and I need to check an address of a provider, I cannot just minimize that and look, I have to close out the documents. This is time consuming and frustrating. Overall too many glitches and this makes one not trust the software - the support team needs to be better! A few are knowledgeable but lately the ones I've dealt with don't know how to address and fix it. Too much wasted time on the phone and I was told they would get back with me with a resolution and no one ever called me back---very disappointing and poor customer service.

Once you understand the make up of it and what it can do, it is great to make the work flow move. Automation of tasks and processes is nice - if you are aware of them and/or are willing to pay for every add on.

It can be cumbersome - especially if you don't know what it can do. Education on new implementations and features have been little to none lately. Any time there is an enhancement, understanding exactly how to implement it into current work flows is clumsy - sometimes requiring revamp of a lot of things. More clicks per task means more things that can be missed.

I have enjoyed working with the symplr team. They are very customer friendly. The support team is amazing.

For the most part the software is easy to use. As you work through the screens, the system will guide you. I also like that for each screen you manipulate, you will be reminded to save prior to getting out of the system.

There have been times during the day that the system just freezes. When this happens, you as the user must get completely out of the system and re-log-in.

It was the first credentialing software used at our facility. It helped to facilitate efficiency in the credentialing process, but did not get us to a fully electronic process.

My familiarity with the software. We were not able to expand on the use and move to a fully electronic office due to constraints of the software we utilize.

Many folks find it complicated and hard to navigate (not intuitive). I find some of the data fields we enter cannot be generated in reports. The software seems to be more geared to managed care organizations than hospitals.

The software is solid and functions as expected. Symplr support is very helpful and take the time to come to a resolution. This is used by our centralized verification office and medical staff offices across the health system.

- Flexibility to track providers in a variety of scenarios - Queries and documents are very user friendly - Integration with other Symplr hosted products - Suite of Cacti products provides needed information for various groups

- No function to merge duplicate providers

We have a back up tracking system to our credentialing department that allows us to track multiple areas of a providers appointments, privileging, on staff dates, and focused & ongoing professional practice evaluations all within one system.

I like the tracking features that it offers and the ability to create data reports specific to what I'm looking for.

I haven't learned how to used the system enough to have any Cons to anything yet, so I really do not have a valid comment for this section.

User the Visual Cactus version is very friendly, great customer support, tons of features and functionality. I believe the price is a value, as I have used it at three local companies, all of whom looked at over software.

The web version is not as user friendly. It is very different than the Visual version and does not make as much "sense" when trying to figure out where to go in the system to find something or do something.

Cactus is constantly looking at improving their software and adding additional features to streamline the credentialing process.

We are experiencing a great dissatisfaction with deploying a new module purchase. The skills of our contact have been less than expected, and the response to our concerns is gravely concerning. Our hope is that this isn't a new trend.

Easy access to provider's information.

Easy of Use. Privilege forms for reference. The ability to attached verified items. Batch print of verification letters.

Reports get changed and then no one knows how they originally existed and they are never the same. It seems I have to be "ugly" to get anything fixed. Turn around time for tickets seems very slow.

New updates and enhancements - new online application process has been wonderfully easy to implement and use. New and existing providers love it!

cost is a huge factor to adding new features, such as license and OIG monitoring. It's hard to cost justify these types of things when it costs so much to implement and then pay yearly to keep.

Good product that meets our needs for now. I am concerned about the web product and whether the bugs have been worked out of the new product.

I am happy that it is customer friendly! That makes for a lot of the sections to be more useful for many different uses.

I am not sure that it is the software, but the solid problem is that the customer service has gone ho

I like that I am able to pull up snapshots of our organization at any moment it's needed, as well as being able to pull real-time data. Having all of the rep information easily accessible is very helpful

It would be nice if I could perform remote overrides from my desktop without having to go to the sign in station

I really like how everything seems to flow seamlessly within the system. There has be no down time with symplr.

It would be nice if the email from the system was a bit more user friendly. If it would show that it came from my office instead of a different address that is not recognizable to my people.

More consistency and accuracy

Data entry is user friendly. It is easy to set up basic queries. There is some customization allowable. LEMM is a life changer.

There are some limitations. Cannot query off the audit log, i.e., changes made. It is very costly to have documents revised in AppCentral.

If you don't need any reports from it, it gives a quick review of the provider. However, reports are difficult to write, feels like you need to have studied programming.

Not user friendly. Feels you need to have had programming experience to be able to get reports out of CACTUS.

I seriously cannot think of anything that I like - a shame that PrivPlus sold out. I have nothing else to say.

Everything - as stated above - there is nothing that I like about this software. I will be very happy if and when we move on to something else

I like the facility reports, that the software is web accessible, I like the dashboard and the previous providers list.

I don't like that at times I constantly get kicked out of the software. There are too many useless standard reports which makes it hard to quickly find the one I need. I don't like that there is no photo of the provider on the Provider At A Glance screen. I would like an easier way to list a street address versus a mailing address. I would like to be able to rename some fields and the Board certifications screen needs better options.

I love the OIG feature and how easy that is to run that report. Everything seems to flow very well with the features.

The only thing that I can think of is that it is not able to do continuous querys for the NPDB so therefore we are not using the add on because we need continuous querys. It would be nice if you could add the Death Master to CACTUS. ECHO has already done that.