Free EHR Consultations

Using peer submitted EHR reviews we will build you a list of custom product recommendations that are popular amongst other medical practices just like yours. Your recommended products will be filtered by specialty and practice size. You will also get up-to-date information including EHR pricing, EHR product demos, and more.

McKesson Provider Technologies

  • Head Office

    One Post Street San Francisco, CA 94104

  • EHR Feedback

Score = 3.24 | nValue = 105

Feedback Date User Comments EHR Rating
I think it is a good system, but we did not have adequate planning or training prior to implementation and some features require specialized training (creating templates, patient registry, meaningful use features. 77 months ago 0
One of the worst EHRs I have used, and I have used many, growing up and training in the EHR world since my second year of medical school. 89 months ago 0
Reporting is not trustworthy 90 months ago 0
I stopped using it years ago. 95 months ago 0
All EHR's suck because they are designed around billing. You must pick the one that sucks the least for your situation. 96 months ago 0
We have a huge problem with the upcoming upgrade to V11. It is poorly tested, in fact we feel like the beta testers and the hospitals using this should be paid by McKesson for doing their work for them. There are many faults and failures with the system. It was rushed to production and many of the changes make no clinical sense. In fact they are backwards. Their response is consistently "working as designed." We are fortunate to have a partner with the staff necessary to help get the job done. 96 months ago 0
Very difficult to view labs and imaging reports; multiple headings mean that you have to look in innumerable places to make sure you have seen all results. Also, the chart is divided into about 20 areas, some of which have sub-headings, so to make sure you have seen everything, you have to look in all 20 areas, which is very time consuming. 96 months ago 0
The only way it semi-works is to turn providers in to expensive clerks, and to require all to manually load data into the system; an element required for providers to document, Dragon Speak, makes it even worse. 96 months ago 0
System was not designed for clinical physicians and is an impediment to practice because of a Government mandate. 97 months ago 0
I spent nearly two years working with earlier versions of Practice Partner and hated it. My institution switched to Epic as an improvement. Though Epic has a lot of bells and whistles which seemed significant improvements, I learned it was not a panacea. I've since moved to a different institution which is using Practice Partner. There is no perfect EHR. 110 months ago 0
Company is not responsive to users and the product has many bugs, especially with reporting. 111 months ago 0
I was a champion of using EMR's before we got one. They have not lived up to my expectation of helping us manage patients more effectively and efficiently. We are much less efficient as we spend too much time managing the record, rather than managing the patient, and the EHR is too much like an electronic paper record. We are "upgrading" to "Cerner" which is going to be a disaster for our very busy practice in terms of productivity and efficiency. We each see 5 to 6 patients per hour and the EHR takes too much time to complete each visit, even using Dragon Speech Recognition vs. free dictation and transcription. A robust graphing program within the EMR would improve our ability to really manage patients and populations and I have seen none with an adequate system. My "stock market" programs have had excellent graphing tools for management and decision making for 15 years, and I do not understand why medicine is still so far behind. 114 months ago 0
System is a good one. Flexible. We purchased system when it was an independent company before it was bought by McKesson. Service has suffered since then. Meaningful Use requirements create a burden, but that is not the fault of any EHR company. 114 months ago 0
We are actively evaluating a replacement product. 114 months ago 0
Really expensive. The MU changes have caused them to solely focus on jumping through hoops for mu rather than usability for end users. Many things are very complicated to set up and/or use so they just aren't. 115 months ago 0
Load More