Slideshow: Finding common ground with staff scheduling systems

July 23, 2010

11:09 AM

From the August 2009 KLAS report 'Staff Scheduling: Nurses Rock the Boat'

Choosing the right staff scheduling technology can be more difficult than expected. This slideshow of a report from independent research firm KLAS shows the disparity between the needs and opinions of different departments within hospitals with regard to staff scheduling. Nursing professionals favor usability and functionality, CIOs push for integration and support, and CFOs want solutions that improve the bottom line. KLAS compiled the responses of 180 varied hospital professionals to uncover which vendors offer solutions that are able to meet multi-departmental needs. Click the images in this slideshow to expand them.

Overall Performance Scores

RES-Q Healthcare Systems RES-Q Labor Resource Management gained the highest performance score, with AtStaff ClairVia and McKesson ANSOS One-Staff following closely behind. Nurses favored RES-Q and McKesson, but were not as impressed with Kronos Workforce Scheduler due to lack of support and a complex design. Kronos scored higher with CFOs, but still came out as the weakest performer, behind API Healthcare ActiveStaffer.

Performance Score by Respondent Job Area

Products are often met with different levels of satisfaction because nurses, finance managers, and IT professionals require different functions from staff scheduling systems. Nurse feedback was the biggest differentiator, due to their high user demands and strong opinions. RES-Q and McKesson scored highly with nurses because of their ease of use, vendor/client interaction, and functionality. These qualities help nurses to effectively and efficiently manage their nursing pools. IT staff rated McKesson well, but CFOs were not satisfied, citing poor interfacing. AtStaff came out on top among CFOs for strong interfacing capabilities.

Performance Score Trend Since 2006

RES-Q has seen a dramatic rise in performance scores since 2008. AtStaff's overall performance has reduced since 2007, but has improved since last year. Matched with AtStaff's current score is McKesson, which has taken an overall drop in ratings since reaching it's highest score in 2007. Kronos has seen inconsistent performance scores since 2006, and API has sharply dropped since 2007.

Direct Comparison: Support and Documentation

RES-Q and McKesson clearly corner the market in regard to support, documentation, functionality, and upgrades, as indicated by respondents.

Direct Comparison: Functionality and Upgrades

Kronos scores relatively well in functionality and upgrades, but it was by far the lowest scorer in support and documentation (see previous slide).

Conclusion

Nursing professionals have a strong stake in staff scheduling systems. They made their opinions clear about vendor performance, which had a large part in determining the results of KLAS' report. KLAS noted that the correlation between nurse satisfaction and high performance scores may not persist, as the market focus shifts to financial benefits. Some vendors, perhaps realizing the advantages of enterprise solutions, are expanding their staff scheduling options. Although RES-Q and AtStaff currently hold the top spots for staff scheduling solutions, the cost savings reported by users of API and Kronos may win the battle. RES-Q and AtStaff could feel the pressure to provide comparable offerings.