GE Centricity Practice Solution

3.79 / 5 (152) FrontRunners®

Our advisors have recommended this product 10 times in the last 30 days

About Centricity


Centricity Practice Solution is an integrated system for clinical and financial management in medical organizations. The system offers a comprehensive suite of functionality for practice administration and electronic medical records (EMR). Because GE Healthcare has such a broad focus on systems for the entire continuum of healthcare services, Centricity software has a well-developed set of integrations with external systems throughout the healthcare community. The program also integrates with a wide range of medical devices, medical imaging systems and other GE Healthcare products.

Centricity EHRs are designed to offer powerful reporting on clinical outcomes. These reports are critical for benchmarking a practice to its peers nationally. Users of Centricity are better prepared to participate in pay for performance medicine programs as a result.

Centricity solutions offer particularly powerful interoperability. The system offers Clinical Messenger to support communication with patients and other practices involved in a patient’s care. An interface engine supports the integration of the program with third-party systems to share lab reports, billing data, clinical notes and related data.

Centricity has achieved ONC-ATCB 2011/2012 certification, which will enable meaningful users to qualify for federal EHR stimulus funds. The system is also CCHIT Certified, a testament to its broad and deep functionality.



Read More

Supported Operating System(s):

Windows Vista, Windows XP, HP-UX, AIX

152 Reviews of Centricity

Average User Ratings

Overall

3.79 / 5 stars

Ease-of-use

3.5

Value for money

3.5

Customer support

3.5

Functionality

4.0

Ratings Snapshot

5 stars

(36)

4 stars

(66)

3 stars

(24)

2 stars

(13)

1 stars

(13)

Likelihood to Recommend

Not likely

Very likely

Filter reviews by:

Sort by: Most Helpful | Most Recent

Showing 1-20 of 152 reviews

Do you use this product?Write a review

November 2016

David from Family Medicine of Mt Pleasant, PC

Company Size: 11-50 employees


Ease-of-use

4.0

Value for money

2.0

Customer support

4.0

Functionality

3.0

November 2016

Long time user

We have been using the product from the days it wasn't owned by GE - it was Medicalogic. When we purchased the original product - you got all features in one price - if you choose not to use that was your choice. Once it was purchased by GE it shifted to a base product plus - so if you want the plus (and you need the plus to meet meaningful use) you will pay for it in initial license fees plus additional support fees. Although we have met meaningful use - the level of day to day satisfaction by our end users is not what it was years ago, part due to the meaningful use requirements (not GE's fault) but part to system being slower - one with more keystrokes required and other you need fast hardware to help keep it responsive. You will need to add some 3rd party apps now for what in our opinion in today's world should be part of the core software. Things such as appointment reminders, portal, secure messaging, and scanning documents are examples where you need to buy 3rd party software - some supported through GE - some not. When we compare GE to our local hospital's system GE is designed for physician practice and GE is a better product. In my estimation meaningful use consumed lots of GE resources and it would be nice to see them catch up on overall functionality of the products.

Pros

Overall system is intuitive to the end user. Its use of some 3rd party applications blend in well with the product and end user most times will not know that a 3rd party application is being used. Customer Support is usually very quick and competent.
Our interfaces with labs have been very reliable. Interfaces with the hospital software has been very reliable from GE's perspective - when we have had issues they are created from the hospital side of the interface.
We have used the system 16 years now and it is core part to our patient flow and information flow and overall up time has been very good, when we have had up time issues it has been something on our side not GE's.

Cons

Each time there is a new function added to the program, that in my opinion should be a base function, there is usually a cost associated with it both with software license cost, added software support cost, and additional hardware resources. It appears to us the most recent new features involves 3rd party software that then also requires additional hardware resources (virtual servcers) and set up. If there is a bug in the system you have to wait for the next patch to come out to fix it, we as an end user have to figure out the work around of those bugs - there is no proactive communication of "known issues and the work arounds".
For a small office training through GE is expensive. In the days of webinars and youtube videos which provides convenient training that can be accessed at any time - to get training through GE it will be an add on to your purchase price. Even voluntary training classes are held in regional sites across the country with a pricetag associated with those. I expect that a technology company would understand the up to date training is essential for optimal use of its product and optimal satisfaction and would use technology to meet those goals and not try to use training as a revenue producer. If there is free training they haven't made us aware of it.
GE's rollout of their new Northstar product required travel to regional locations with end user having a cost of time and travel. For a technology company to use old methods to roll out new technology is disappointing.

July 2013

Kyle from Iowa Primary Care Association


Ease-of-use

3.0

Customer support

3.0

Functionality

4.0

July 2013

We are a healthcenter controlled network, who support seven different Community Health Center organizations in the states of Iowa and Nebraska with GE Centricity, CPS 10. We have been fully implemented with all seven organizations for the past two years. We support these centers with hosting services, support services, continuing education training services, and reporting services. Implementation of the system was fairly straight forward. We planned for 3-4 months to implement the PM portion of CPS, and 5-7 months to implement the EMR portion of CPS per center. The extended time for implementation and training was a huge success and 100% successful at each site (no retraining or non-use of CPS after implementation). My advice is take the extra time implementing to guarantee success the first time. We spent much time focusing on workflows and workflow re-engineering, multiple training classes, and assigning clinical champions for each department or area. Ease of use: CPS 10 is fairly straight forward to use once you understand the workflows and steps. My biggest complaint from our users is the large number of clicks to complete a task. It is hard to explain why it would take up to 25 clicks to complete a prescription refill if the medication was not correct or needed to be updated. Expect to do a lot of clicking and typing, which is generally typical for most EHR systems at this stage. Product Quality: CPS 10 is generally a solid program that gets the daily functions done correctly with minimal issues or inconsistencies. With that said, our biggest frustration are error messages that occur on a frequent basis with no work around or quick fix. We generally must wait till the next release of the application is available before they are repaired. It is hard to explain to a provider they must live with an error message occuring 2-5 times a day for the next 3 months until a fix is developed. Software breaks and has issues, but the lack of assistance to fix irritating errors quickly can cause frustration. Overall, the application functions as advertised. Customer Support: Customer support can be hit or miss. We generally get a callback on issues between 2-5 days on most GE tickets opened. We generally have to work through tier support to get to the right person. Since we also support the application, we usually waste a week working to the higher tier support techs since most of our issues we have already troubleshot ourselves. Support will eventually get back to you, but it might not be quickly. We generally have to nudge our sales manager to push tickets through that do not get responses. Overall, you will get a response eventually. Functionality: The program functions well and as advertised. It has all the bells and whistles and does everything up to compliance. This is probably GE's strongest area, keeping up with compliancy and functionality. I would recommended GE Centricity to another user, as no EHR is perfect, but expect the above performance items and support mentioned.

July 2013

Mitch from Preferred Primary Care Physicians


Ease-of-use

4.0

Customer support

4.0

Functionality

5.0

July 2013

We're an 18-site independent primary care group that has been using Centricity for almost 10 years, after dumping another enterprise EHR that failed to get off of the launchpad. We had a phenomenal project manager leading the implementation of our first offices, and we were able to pick up the baton and implement the remaining practices using a stepwise, train-the-trainer approach. We currently use CPS 11. The product isn't perfect, but we've worked with other products peripherally, and none are better for a group our size. Despite "clunkiness" in earlier versions, we've seen the product steadily improve over the last few years into a solid, dependable solution for our patients. Clinical content possibilities are nearly endless which can be a good thing and a bad thing (don't caught in the customization quicksand!). Functionality has improved to get simple tasks within physician "click thresholds". We have used the system for research studies, care management, patient-centered medical home, and a variety of P4P/Quality programs - and I would say it has helped us improve clinical outcomes. GE keeps an open door for users to submit complaints, comments, and suggestions; and the Centricity user group is second to none. We might see an occasional glitch from time to time - as is expected with any IT system - but it rarely impacts clinical care. Support has improved dramatically over time, and we typically experience quick responses to our issues, particularly if the system is down (we also have a backup environment to mitigate production outages). Overall, we have been very happy with our decision to implement Centricity, and we would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a new EHR. Ratings: Ease-of-use: Overall, very good. There are some things removed from the latest version of CPS (11) that we would like to see back in place, but we have adjusted through customization of our forms. Product quality: Very good. The user interface is a big change if you're used to the older versions, but over time, users say it's intuitive. We still see the occasional error, glitch or crash, but we usually upgrade to new versions soon after they're released. The quality is far better than earlier versions. Performance is good if you have the right infrastructure in place. Functionality: Outstanding. It has a wide range of content out-of-the-box, the user group shares content freely, and customers can create and modify any forms they wish to put into practice. It meets ICD-10 needs a year early, and it has been easy to meet Meaningful Use requirements. Customer Support: Very Good. It has improved tenfold over the years. Response is fast, and, generally, resolutions are sufficient to fix issues. Updates to fix bugs could come a little faster.

August 2013

Barbara from Heart and Vascular Center of Arizona


Ease-of-use

4.0

Customer support

5.0

Functionality

4.0

August 2013

Heart & Vascular Center of Arizona is a 9 physician, 8 mid-level, 6 location cardiology practice in Arizona. We went live on CPS 2006 for PM and then EMR in 2008. Our implementation went very well and we have continued to grow with the product. We are using two lab interfaces, CCC Forms, Docutrak, Patient Portal and Kryptiq Secure Messaging, Online Bill Pay and E-Statements, e-Prescribing, Biscom Fax, Cardiosoft EKG Module with integration into our office note, Real Time Eligibility, Centricity EDI, Analytics and InDXLogic automated indexing. After going live we saw an immediate savings of nearly $100,000 per year in transcription costs that were no longer necessary. We had been scanning older documents for years and were totally chart free within 30-60 days! Our providers and medical assistants use wireless laptops in all of our office locations. We have one outreach location where our doctors flies his plane to and connects via Citrix. Our Patient Portal has continued to improve our efficiency as we grow the participating patient population. Releasing medical records, online bill pay, decreasing phone time and the cost of staff produce measurable ROI for our practice. We have upgraded several times and were one of the first GE Practices to attest to Stage I Meaningful Use for CMS in April 2011. We are currently on 10.1.3 and planning to upgrade to 12. We are utilizing MQIC reporting for PQRS for our providers. We have also successfully integrated our Centricity reporting with the American College of Cardiology and the Pinnacle Registry for reporting. The Centricity/MQIC Quality reporting is providing us all our data for our NCQA Heart Stroke Certification. Our clinical staff frequently pull inquiries for all types of quality initiatives and the ease of obtaining this data is remarkable! The Billing System far surpassed anything we had previously utilized. The real time insurance eligibility piece is used by both our front office and billing departments, and we could not live without it! The integration between the EMR and Charge module is awesome. One of our favorite billing features is the EOB for secondary, which is immediately available after the payment is posted. The other major upgrade for us is Centricity Reporting and the Analytics Program. Both very powerful tools that our practice cannot do without! Centricity Support Staff have guided us through implementation of PM and EMR and two major upgrades. I cannot say enough about the personnel that GE provides for us. We jumped into the world of EMR in 2008 and have never looked back, always forward towards new technology and the next upgrade!

July 2013

Tim from The Oregon Clinic


Ease-of-use

4.0

Customer support

4.0

Functionality

3.0

July 2013

We are a 160 provider multi-specialty group. We've been on Centricity EMR since 1998 and on Centricty PM since 2005. The product fits our needs. It is very stable and functionality improves with each release. We are currently on EMR version 9.5 and CPS version 10 with a plan to combine the two products at the next software release. GE Support used to be a weak link, but has improved significantly over the past 3 years. We get good incident responses and appropriate escalations for business-impacting issues. The product is fairly easy to use and training for new users is quick. We have a fairly complex and fluid environment so this is very important to us. We do get complaints from providers about "too many clicks" but we can usually come up with an acceptable solution by changing either the form they are using or the provider workflow. Some of this "click-count" is related to Meaningful Use requirements that are not really a software problem. The product does require some trained, knowledgeable "super-users" who can help translate provider and clinic needs into a workflow that integrates with the software. We have a dedicated account manager who works with us on product roadmaps, enhancement requests, and regulatory requirements. GE has made executive-level staff available to discuss strategy and planning. They treat us as a partner rather than a revenue stream. They do make a genuine effort to connect with their customers. One comment I have is that integration with third-party GE Partners (such as patient portal vendors) can be confusing. Sometimes it seems as if the partner products are tacked-on rather than fully integrated solutions. One other comment is that the development process for new releases and features seems slow. Sometimes features that we want immediately have to wait for the next software release. It would be nice to have a platform that was more extensible. In general though Centricity is a stable, usable platform, and a key component of our business. We used it to successfully meet the Meaningful Use requirements for our doctors. We have surveyed competing products just to get a sense of what is out there and we found that none of them are perfect. Centricity isn't perfect either but it has been a solid performer for us over a long period of time.

July 2013

Debra from Children's Orthopaedic and Scoliosis Surgery Associates, LLP


Ease-of-use

4.0

Customer support

4.0

Functionality

5.0

July 2013

We are an orthopaedic practice that has been on GE Centricity Practice Solutions (CPS) the practice management since 2001. We have been very successful using the practice management (PM), and knew when it was time to look at the EMR, GE would be the right choice. Having a fully integrated EMR/PM system is (in my opinion) the best way to go. We are pleased with the way GE handled the ICD-10 implementation. The system displays both the ICD-9 next to ICD-10. When ICD-10 goes into effect we will have office notes that match our billing. CPS is capable of sending ICD-9 to some insurance companies, and as the insurance companies are ready we will send ICD-10. The system has been designed to handle both. In January of 2013, we went live with CPS 10.1.3 EMR, we feel that this has been great decision. Our processes and systems continue to improve over time. CPS allows the physician to code by selecting the problem. Our orders are fully integrated and flow into the PM side. Documentation is clean and our notes read like an office note. The physicians can dictate, use a template, or do both. We have found our physicians like using the template for the history, ROS, and physical exams but would rather dictate their assessments using Dragon Medical software. We have an HL7 interface with the hospital. This allows labs (in structured data format) and hospital reports to come into the system without us having to work the document. Our patient portal allows us to capture the histories which flow into the record and decreases staff time needed for data capture. We went live, and for two weeks did half schedules. We went back up to full schedules with much better documentation, and meeting the meaningful use standards and criteria. We were only able to accomplish this with our GE EMR trainer and project team. With any EMR - my strongest suggestion would be to take the time for proper set up and training. GE gives you the tools and the people to allow for smooth implementation to EMR. GE CPS is a flexible system which allows you to develop the processes you need for your practice. That does not mean it's an easy system but I do not believe you could have an EMR that would be flexible and meet your needs without it being complex.

April 2018

Lisa from Montclair Breast Center

Company Size: 11-50 employees

Review Source


Ease-of-use

4.0

Value for money

4.0

Customer support

5.0

Functionality

4.0

April 2018

Many resources

From what I understand GE Healthcare EMR will be bought out by another company. I'm hoping that this will help fund change.

Pros

I have found that GE offers a lot of education at your fingertips. You just need to sign up for a SSO user login and there you can find different resources to help you use the product. You can tailor your own forms within the program with the use of a different software.

Cons

There are too many add-ons that can become pricey. There are many 3rd party vendors that you can use within centricity for additional cost. That can be frustrating. I would prefer to pay additional money monthly for a one stop shopping program.

March 2015

Jonathan from Rutgers RWJMS


Ease-of-use

1.0

Customer support

1.5

Functionality

3.0

March 2015

Antiquated, poorly implemented, poorly thought out enterprise EHR

Pros

EMR allows access to medical records remotely; works with larger practices/academic practices; works with GE's scheduling software; the basic functionality is there, including integration with pharmacies, multiple outside laboratories, and radiology centers. This is the kind of EHR that has all the capabilities you would need for a large practice or academic center. Sadly, it is antiquated, poorly implemented, and very difficult to use on a day-to-day basis

Cons

We are still running Centricity 9.8, so some of the criticisms may not apply to the 10.0 product. There is so much wrong here that I cannot possibly list everything. Suffice it to say, it is surprising to me that anyone could sell this kind of software in the modern era. No other business but medicine would even consider it. I used Epicare 7 years ago; it was by no means perfect, but it was far, far more user-friendly than the Centricity of today.

This is a system that has all the capabilities you would need in an enterprise EHR for a large practice or academic medical center, but fails miserably when it comes to usability and efficiency. It fails to the point that I am surprised that anyone would be able to successfully market such a terrible product in 2015:

1. Clunky, antiquated, mid-1990s era software in both look and feel. If you have a hankering to drift back to the halcyon days of Netscape 1.0, this one's for you. If you want something that feels like modern software and actually plays well with Windows 7 and beyond, look elsewhere.

2. Slow server speeds. Nothing else is slow on the computer, just Centricity. IT tells me it's the Centricity server. Quite frankly, I don't care why it's slow. I'm a user. I have a busy clinic. I just want the program to be snappy. Given Centricity's persistence in producing mid-1990s code, this thing should hum like a Ferrari. They replaced our 7-year-old computers in the clinic recently. Our web browsing speed is now lightning fast. Microsoft Office now pops up much faster. Ah, but Centricity - still plodding at the same slow pace.

3. Cannot open multiple windows (Hello! Microsoft solved this problem for consumers with Windows 3.1 in 1992). This is unconscionable in 2015. Who writes software like this anymore?

4. Home screens are fixed and not user configurable. I have more control over my Yahoo! home page than I have with my Centricity home page (and I don't have to pay anything for the Yahoo! home page).

4. Font size in Centricity 9.8 is still fixed at 8 point and does not expand when you expand the window. 13" laptop, 24" terminal, IMAX Theater - the font size is still the same size. This would be great if teenagers were working on the EMR, but for those of us approaching middle age, it means investing in a pair of reading glasses or finally getting those progressive lenses. Once again, low-level stuff that makes a program easy to used, again ignored.

5. No real-time spell check. Really. I cannot say how ridiculous this is, when my web browser can spell check as I type.

6. Poorly organized/Poorly implemented:
-->There are buttons on buttons and checkboxes on checkboxes. This software looks pieced together since GE bought out Logician, and instead of ever rethinking, they just added a dizzying array of more and more stuff
-->Tiny, tiny boxes to type history and other information into that cannot expand
-->2000 character limit within the boxes (hard to believe that this is even an issue in 2015) leads to the need for multiple tabs for histories and character limits for the assessment/plan means very terse language, as there's no way to expand this. This is probably okay for most surgical practices, but for the complex, medical patient this is a death knell for this software.
-->The Centricity programmers like to make you type text into boxes. Apparently, the smaller the box is, the better. The largest windows can be found on the supplementary tabs for the HPI. The rest are small, smaller, and smallest, without regard to what you might have to/want to type.
-->Flow is unacceptably horrible when typing in notes: you have to type section by section within the tombstone, slab window that pops up. The window is 8" x 8 3/4 inches, and just like the font is not resizable. (No need to invest in a large monitor; the slab and its text never change in size.) What's even better is that depending on the tab, the tombstone is cut up into even smaller sections, filled with more tabs, rows of buttons, a variety of check boxes, and often very tiny windows that you could type into, that is, assuming you can see them. In most cases, you cannot write directly within the flowing text of the note. You must flip section-by-section within the tombstone to input any information (e.g. HPI, PMH, FH/SH etc.); there's no way to open a second window or split the screen to refer back to another part of the note. (Earth to Centricity programmers: why do you force us to type within a small window? How about flowing text with no character limits and resizable fonts that can be broken up into sections that are potentially collapsible with a click. Just saying.)
-->The user can't customize their own flow sheets, notes, letters, etc. All this has to go through IT. There is no way to make a temporary, personal, customizable flow sheet on the fly either. Most EHRs allow this.
-->'Quick Text' allows you to make customizable text shortcuts. Of course, you can't do this on the fly, while writing a note (which is when I think of these things in the first place). Of course, the quick texts have a character limit of 512 (ugh!), and you have to type into a box the size of a postage stamp, where you can't even view the entire Quick Text if it exceeds 40 characters.
-->You cannot look at the labs and type your assessment and plan at the same time. This is a deal breaker for any specialty that relies on laboratory data when making clinical decisions. To view the lab data, you have to close the type-in tombstone window, click open the flow sheet or documents section. If in the document section, you must click on the document to view, then close it, click back to the update section, click on the part of the chart you want to go to. If you are viewing problems, you can click on the problem you desire to work on, but it always defaults to the screen for problem #1 and #2 so if you're working on problem #3 or beyond, it's yet another click. It takes at minimum of 4-5 clicks per reference back to a lab and 6-7 clicks if you are looking at a study, depending on which number problem you are working on. I end up opening and closing the note tombstone so many times during note writing it's almost seizure inducing.
-->Scanned documents store as PDFs and the proprietary viewer is slow to pop up and makes it difficult to scroll through the PDFs quickly. This module is poorly implemented
-->The printed notes are unchangeable and unformattable. They come chock full of plenty of useless fodder that make the note unengaging when read on the screen and often several pages long when one or two would do.

And there's much, much more. I just don't have the time.

October 2013