RevolutionEHR vs athenaOne

Has your current EHR left you feeling like it's time for a revolution?  Let's take a look at how users feel about RevolutionEHR after a year of use.  Overall, users appreciate the comprehensive nature of the platform, which includes features for scheduling, billing, and patient engagement, making it a one-stop shop for practice management.  The user interface is generally considered intuitive and easy to navigate, even for those with limited technical experience.  RevolutionEHR also offers robust reporting capabilities, allowing practices to track key metrics and identify areas for improvement.  However, some users have reported occasional glitches and slowdowns, particularly during peak usage times.  Additionally, the customer support experience has been mixed, with some users finding it helpful and responsive, while others have experienced long wait times and unhelpful responses.  RevolutionEHR stands out from its competitors due to its integrated patient portal, which allows patients to easily access their medical records, schedule appointments, and communicate with their providers.  This focus on patient engagement is a major differentiator for RevolutionEHR and is highly valued by users.  The platform also offers a wide range of customization options, allowing practices to tailor the system to their specific needs.  RevolutionEHR is best suited for small to medium-sized practices that are looking for a comprehensive and user-friendly EHR solution.  The platform's integrated features and focus on patient engagement make it an ideal choice for practices that want to improve efficiency and provide a better patient experience.  However, practices with a high volume of patients or complex workflows may want to consider other options, as RevolutionEHR may not be able to meet their needs.  Keep in mind that software is constantly evolving, so it's always a good idea to check the latest reviews and updates before making a decision.

Athena offers robust functionalities that streamline many daily tasks for care providers. Many users felt that the system offered all of the functionalities they were looking for and felt that the interface was easy to navigate and did not experience system downtime. Users also felt that customer support was able to address most of their concerns at a satisfactory level. However, some users felt that the claims functionality was unsatisfactory and recognized that the system couldn’t make their desired customizations. Users also noticed inaccuracies in their data, but many were unable to determine if this was a result of the system storing information incorrectly or the result of users experiencing difficulty navigating the platform. The high price of this system may be cost prohibitive as this system is best suited for smaller practices that won’t need to provide multiple care providers with access to the system.