PERFORMANCE REPORT

June 2012
Non-Provider Price $13,980

Ultrasound 2012
TECHNOLOGY IMPROVED, USAGE AMPLIFIED

www.KLASresearch.com

Ultrasound 2012: Technology Improved, Usage Amplified

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4

14

35

SECTION
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
How Do the Vendors Stack Up?

Worth Knowing

GE LOGIQ E9

The Bottom Line on Vendors

Introduction
Ultrasound in Practice

Down with Downtime

Technology that Matters: Mobility, Penetration, Ergonomics,
and Image Quality
Conclusion
VENDOR BRIEFS
Philips iU22
Siemens S2000
Toshiba Aplio MX

ZONARE z.one ultra

EXPANDED RESULTS (105+ PAGES)

Ultrasound 2012 I 1

Executive Overview

Ben Brown REPORT AUTHOR

bbrown@klasresearch.com

Holly Wallace Nielsen CHIEF EDITOR

holly.wallace@klasresearch.com

TO VIEW OTHER TEAM MEMBERS CLICK HERE:

FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT, CONTACT:
KLAS
630 E Technology Ave.
Orem, UT 84097

Ph: 800-920-4109 Fax: 801-377-6345

Web: www.KLASresearch.com

TO PURCHASE THE FULL VERSION OF THIS REPORT, LOG ON TO OUR STORE

READER RESPONSIBILITY:
This report is a compilation of data gathered from websites, healthcare industry reports, interviews with healthcare
provider executives and managers, and interviews with vendor and consultant organizations. Data gathered from these
sources includes strong opinions (which should not be interpreted as actual facts) reflecting the emotion of exceptional
success and, at times, failure. The information is intended solely as a catalyst for a more meaningful and effective
investigation on your organizations part and is not intended, nor should it be used, to replace your organizations due
diligence.
KLAS data and reports represent the combined opinions of actual people from provider organizations comparing how
their vendors, products, and/or services performed when measured against participants' objectives and expectations.
KLAS findings are a unique compilation of candid opinions and are real measurements representing those individuals
interviewed. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base. Significant variables
including organization/hospital type (rural, teaching, specialty, etc.), organization size, depth/breadth of software use,
software version, role in the organization, provider objectives, and system infrastructure/network impact participants
opinions, preclude an exact apples-to-apples vendor/product comparison or a finely tuned statistical analysis.
We encourage our clients, friends and partners using KLAS research data to take into account these variables as they
include KLAS data in their other due diligence. For frequently asked questions about KLAS methodology, please refer to
the KLAS FAQs.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WARNING:

This report, and its contents, are copyright protected works and are intended solely for your organization. Any other
organization, consultant, investment company or vendor enabling or obtaining unauthorized access to this report will be
liable for all damages associated with copyright infringement, which may include the full price of the report and/or
attorneys fees. For information regarding your specific obligations, please refer to the KLAS Data Use Policy.

ABOUT KLAS:
For more information about KLAS, please visit our website.

OUR MISSION:
KLAS mission is to improve the delivery of healthcare technology by independently measuring and reporting on vendor
performance.

Ultrasound 2012 I 13

Vendor Briefs

Expanded Results (105+ pages)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
36
38
59
62

SECTION
TABLE OF FIGURES
MARKET DETAIL
PROVIDER COMMENTARY
VENDOR DETAIL (COMMENTARY AND OVERVIEWS)
GE Healthcare

139
141

Philips
Siemens
Toshiba

ZONARE
KLAS VENDOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
KLAS FAQS SUMMARY

Ultrasound 2012 I 35

 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall Performance Scores ......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Overall Performance Score TrendingPast Four Years ............................................................ 4
Figure 3: Vendor Score by Scanning Areas ................................................................................................. 5
Figure4: Performance Scoring by Age of Equipment ................................................................................ 6
Figure 5: Hands-On Users vs. Administrative RespondentsOverall Score ........................................... 7
Figure 6: Downtime Impact ......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Technology Performance ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 8: Evangelists vs. Naysayers ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 9: GE LOGIQ E9: Functional Area .................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10: GE LOGIQ E9: Years Live Gap Chart .......................................................................................... 16
Figure 11: GE LOGIQ E9: Scan Type ............................................................................................................ 16
Figure 12: GE LOGIQ E9: Score Frequency ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 13: GE LOGIQ E9: Performance Gap ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 14: GE LOGIQ E9: Provider Respondent Job Areas (n=45) ........................................................... 18
Figure 15: GE LOGIQ E9: Size of Respondent Organizations (n=45) ....................................................... 18
Figure 16: Philips: Functional Area ............................................................................................................ 19
Figure 17: Philips: Years Live Gap Chart..................................................................................................... 20
Figure 18: Philips: Scan Type ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 19: Philips iU22: Score Frequency .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 20: Philips iU22: Score Gap chart..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 21: Philips iU22: Provider Respondent Job Areas (n=60) .............................................................. 22
Figure 22: Philips iU22: Size of Respondent Organizations (n=60) ......................................................... 22
Figure 23: Siemens S2000: Functional Area .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 24: Siemens S2000: Years Live Gap Chart ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 25: Siemens S2000: Scan Type ....................................................................................................... 24
Figure 26: Siemens S2000: Score Frequency ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 27: Siemens S2000: Gap chart ........................................................................................................ 25
Figure 28: Siemens S2000: Provider Respondent Job Areas (n=78) ....................................................... 26
Figure 29: Siemens S2000: Size of Respondent Organizations (n=77) ................................................... 26
Figure 30: Toshiba Aplio: Functional Area ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 31: Toshiba Aplio: Years Live Gap Chart ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 32: Toshiba Aplio: Scan Type .......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 33: Toshiba Aplio: Score Frequency ............................................................................................... 29
Figure 34: Toshiba Aplio: Gap Chart .......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 35: Toshiba Aplio: Provider Respondent Job Areas (n=32) .......................................................... 30
Figure 36: Toshiba Aplio: Size of Respondent Organizations (n=32) ...................................................... 30
Figure 37: ZONARE z.one ultra: Functional Area ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 38: ZONARE z.one ultra: Years Live Gap Chart ............................................................................. 32
Figure 39: ZONARE z.one ultra: Scan Type ............................................................................................... 32
Figure 40: ZONARE z.one ultra: Score Frequency .................................................................................... 33
Figure 41: ZONARE z.one ultra: Gap Chart ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 42: ZONARE z.one ultra: Provider Respondent Job Areas (n=28) ............................................... 34
Figure 43: ZONARE z.one ultra: Size of Respondent Organizations (n=28) ........................................... 34
36 I Ultrasound 2012

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the retail price.

Table of Figures

Figure 44: Survey Participants/Overall Score by Title (n=243) ................................................................ 39

Figure 45: Overall: Size of Provider Organizations (n=242) ..................................................................... 39
Figure 46: Average total number of units per Ultrasound evaluation product (n=98) ......................... 40
Figure 47: What areas do you anticipate ultrasound volumes to increase? (94) .................................. 40
Figure 48: What is causing the increase of volume in these areas? (n=83) ............................................ 41
Figure 49: Area causing the ultrasound volume to increase? (n=83) ...................................................... 41
Figure 50: Overall Scan Type Performance............................................................................................... 42
Figure 51: Scan Type: Anesthesia/OR Performance.................................................................................. 42
Figure 52: Scan Type: Breast Performance ............................................................................................... 43
Figure 53: Scan Type: Cardiac Performance ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 54: Scan Type: Vascular Performance ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 55: Scan Type: ED Performance ..................................................................................................... 44
Figure 56: Scan Type: ICU/NICU Performance.......................................................................................... 45
Figure 57: Scan Type: Interventional Radiology Performance ................................................................ 45
Figure 58: Scan Type: OB/GYN Performance ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 59: Scan Type: Oncology Performance ......................................................................................... 46
Figure 60: Scan Type: Ortho/MSK Performance ...................................................................................... 47
Figure 61: Scan Type: Pediatrics Performance.......................................................................................... 47
Figure 62: Scan Type: Urology Performance ............................................................................................ 48
Figure 63: Functional Area: Penetration Performance ............................................................................ 48
Figure 64: Functional Area: Ergonomics Performance ............................................................................ 49
Figure 65: Functional Area: Mobility Performance .................................................................................. 49
Figure 66: Functional Area: Overall Image Quality Performance ............................................................ 50
Figure 67: Overall: In the past three months what is the total number of downtime incidents at your
facility? ............................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 68: Overall Trend: In the past three months what is the total number of downtime incidents at
your facility? ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 69: Total work hours lost over the last 3 months? ........................................................................ 51
Figure 70: Trend: Total work hours lost over the last 3 months? ............................................................ 52
Figure 71: What new ultrasound technologies are you most interested in? ........................................... 52
Figure 72: Who is your preferred ultrasound vendor? ............................................................................. 53
Figure 73: Overall Score: Hands-On vs Administration? ........................................................................... 53
Figure 74: Side-by-Side Comparison Ultrasound Vendor Performance ............................................... 54
Figure 75: Overall: Score Frequency.......................................................................................................... 55
Figure 76: Overall: Scores by Bed Sizes (n=228) ....................................................................................... 56
Figure 77: Overall: Scores by Region (n=228) ........................................................................................... 57
Figure 78: Overall: Service Scores by Region (n=220) .............................................................................. 57
Figure 79: Overall: 0-1 Years Live Gap Chart ............................................................................................. 58
Figure 80: Percent Positive Commentary by Vendor ............................................................................60
Figure 81: Positive vs. Negative Commentary Overall ............................................................................. 61

Ultrasound 2012 I 37

Market Detail

38 I Ultrasound 2012

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the retail price.

Market Detail

SPECIFIC RESEARCH DATA

Figure 44: Survey Participants/Overall Score by Title (n=243)
Sonographer
13%
Radiology
Manager
41%

Cardiology
Manager/Director
6%
C-level
1%
Other
Director/Manager
7%

Radiology Director
32%

Figure 45: Overall: Size of Provider Organizations (n=242)

501-1,000 Beds
13%

Over 1,000 Beds

5%

201-500 Beds
31%

Clinic
15%

1-200 Beds
36%

Ultrasound 2012 I 39