+1 619 822 1745 [email protected]

Implementation Setup

User Comments

Corepoint

  • “Transitioning from a legacy engine to Corepoint is fairly straightforward as far as the tool goes. How smooth a transition is usually has more to do with how well planned the process is and how easy it is to gather information about the legacy interfaces so they can be migrated/replicated in Corepoint.”
  • “The engine is intuitive and support team is helpful, however formal training is ridiculously expensive.”
  • “We went live and the hospital never even noticed. Smooth.”
  • “Corepoint could not be more simple to implement. The hardest part is getting the SQL Server instance in place. At Go Live, the built in Configuration Management features make it very easy to move multiple interfaces into the production environment.”
  • “Because of all the system processes that are coupled together, small problems that should only affect one interface actually affect the entire engine and require reboot (fatal errors).”

Cloverleaf

  • “Cloverleaf is not “simple”. But simple won’t cut it.”
  • “I wish we had spent more focus on HA\failovers when initially implementing the engine.”
  • “Requires solid familiarity of UNIX.”
  • “The testing tool is very helpful to help minimize errors and test your code.”

Ensemble

  • “Not as many defined standards as we would like and lots of work to re-engineer post go-live based on minimal direction/support during implementation. Just led as replace like-for-like, not taking advantage of Ensemble capabilities.”
  • “There was a learning curve, as with all engines. The idea of routing vs translating was new to us.”
  • “Easy to implement, but requires a development background.”

Mirth

  • “The toughest part was getting documentation on installation of the engine on Linux, but after we got documentation the installation was pretty smooth.”
  • “Things that made interface development easy: drag and drop functionality, javascript design, ease of testing, and version tracking.”
  • “Initially when we started working with the product we had to learn JavaScript. The ability to clone channels and/or destinations made the process seamless from testing to production.”

Rhapsody

  • “Since you can do virtually anything you want to in a message in Rhapsody, it makes it easy to migrate to Rhapsody since the functionality probably already exists. That also makes it tough, because it’s often hard to determine which is the best way to develop what you’re trying to accomplish. Do I do it all in a mapper? Do I build out a JS filter & an HL7 message modifier? There are a lot of options.”
  • “Rhapsody was easy to learn. It was difficult to have several people working on the system before standardization of structures. It was not set up and we needed to constantly adjust the structures as new conditions occurred. The application was not constructed to make standardization easy to create.”
  • “Toughest part is the layout/naming conventions. Having an outside resource was greatest benefit on standing up the environment”
  • “It is easily implemented on Window, AIX and Linux, in a consistent manner. The pre-built objects made it easy to convert from the previous engine, with a short learning curve for developers.”
  • “We moved all of our interfaces over from JCAPS. The implementation was time-consuming and took an FTE approximately 12 months to complete.”
Compare All Ratings in Survey Summary

0% – difficult implementation
100% – seamless implementation

Corepoint

87%

Cloverleaf

79%

Ensemble

73%

Mirth

72%

Rhapsody

Ratings

Meeting Needs Features & Usability Additional Features Implementation Setup Stability & Scalability Support & Services Total Cost of Ownership Vendor Vs. Partner
Overall Rating