What vendors have COTS solutions for infectious disease case management?

Applications & Platforms
4.1k viewscircle icon2 Upvotescircle icon5 Comments
Sort by:
System Operation Manager in Finance (non-banking)2 years ago

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solutions for infectious disease case management in the healthcare sector. These vendors included ZyterTruCare, Epic Systems, Cerner Corporation, McKesson Corporation, IBM Watson Health, Oracle Healthcare, Optum, SAS Institute, Phytel, ESRI, Meditech, Athenahealth, and MEDHOST. What is important is telemetry and how data is saved and transmitted, as well as how the data is processed and what conclusions I draw from them.

IT Analyst2 years ago

It's something that needs improvement, this should not be happening. 

IT Analyst in Media2 years ago

IBM: IBM's Watson Health had solutions that could be customized for infectious disease case management.

IT Manager in Transportation2 years ago

In the case of health care, cooperation only with a proven supplier will be safe. The question is very difficult, and it may not be possible to make the right choice. When assessing it, it is worth considering which company has the best technology. What is important is telemetry and how data is saved and transmitted, as well as how the data is processed and what conclusions I draw from them. 

IT Analyst in Software2 years ago

Several vendors offer COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) solutions for infectious disease case management. Some notable vendors include Epic Systems Corporation, Cerner Corporation, McKesson Corporation, IBM Watson Health, Oracle Health Sciences, HCL Technologies, SAS Institute, TIBCO Software, eClinicalWorks, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. These solutions provide tools for tracking, monitoring, and reporting on infectious disease cases, but it's essential to evaluate them based on your organization's specific needs and budget.

Content you might like

Do you use ServiceNow to manage access and support identity and access management within your organization?

Yes68%

No32%

I work for a company with geographically dispersed operations, and we are facing significant challenges with our data collection and reporting processes for HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment). We collect a variety of environmental data (e.g., water quality indexes, equipment training compliance) from multiple sites. Our current data collection application has critical governance gaps. When an indicator shows a deviation, we struggle to trace its origin because the system lacks a clear audit trail. We cannot confidently verify who entered the data or when, which undermines the reliability of our HSE indicators. Furthermore, our data collection forms are rigid. Any request to add or modify fields requires our development team, leading to significant delays and hindering our ability to adapt to new requirements quickly. Questions: 1. How do you ensure robust data governance for HSE indicators? What tools or best practices have you found effective? 2. Have you successfully empowered your business or HSE teams to create and modify data collection forms without developer dependency? If so, what low-code/no-code platforms or solutions do you recommend?

As part of digital transformation, what are the key topics you are considering for an effective evolution of business?

Read More Comments

My ESG team uses a dedicated application to consolidate indicators for external reporting. This system manages a workflow where a designated owner submits data and a validator approves it. However, the process is heavily manual and lacks system integration.

With upcoming regulations like CVM 193 in Brazil, the pressure for accurate, auditable, and timely ESG data is intensifying, and our current tool is being questioned.

Question: What strategies or platforms have you implemented to automate the extraction of ESG data from various source systems (EHS, HR, ERP, etc.) into a centralized reporting tool?

What’s your top barrier to adopting AI-driven pentesting?

Lack of mature vendor solutions50%

Trust in AI accuracy68%

Budget constraints23%

Skills to operate the tools36%

View Results