4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 29, 2016
Good planning process but had to go through several iterations during deployment to develop an architecture that worked for our environment. Vidyo continued to provide engineering support for the entire process even though original engagement was scheduled to be much shorter. Although it took much longer than we anticipated we are pleased with the final outcome.
Have your network infrastructure set up prior to deployment, ie firewall settings, routing tables and server configurations to Vidyo specs prior to initiating deployment.
The ease of use for the standalone Vidyo client and quality of the interaction.
No real dislikes of the product, tech support sometimes slow to respond but seems to be getting better.
I wish we had gotten better information on system design for fail over initially. We went through several iterations of a design before coming pretty much full circle to one that worked successfully.
Understand fail over design and processes better and have our network environment set up more completely before starting deployment. There were delays on both our end and Vidyo that could have been avoided by following the above.
just for the length of time it took to get everything finalized and complete.
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 28, 2016
The implentation process has been very good and the customization of the product to meet our specific needs has been an excellent process. The team at Vidyo has been extremely helpful throughout the entire process. Went to Vidyo offered training which was also excellent and helped to better understand the equipment and how to support and manage it. We are a very happy customer.
Telehealth is not video conferencing. Telehealth is leveraging the technology of video conferencing to achieve a healthcare encounter and thus meet the needs of the patient. Telehealth is amazing in what it can do, but it also can be something where you can overstep what its capabilities are to provide safe care easily. Further the regulatory landscape is quite complex (no surprise to those in healthcare). There is a lot of research that should go into determining an infrastructure to build a telehealth platform on and we have been very satisfied with Vidyo. I would also recommend LOTS of testing as part of the decision making process. At first glance most of the various platforms offer similar features and in some cases similar costs, but when you start to stress them by decreasing available bandwidth or conduct a conference in a mobile environment the quality of the underlying technologies begin to surface. We have had multiple physicians note how good the video quality is in comparison to what they are used to on other systems, and we hope that quality translates to improved patient experience and outcomes.
There is no need to write a lot here! The system is very reliable with extremely high quality audio and video. That is the best and most important feature of Vidyo.
There are a few features that are a bit confusing on the UI that have taken some training for users to get used to. For example, instead of internally managing call routing, you can join your room and then call others or you can just call them directly. Most choose the call direct option and then are frustrated to find that many features do not exist because this is a "point to point" call and thus additional parties cannot be added. Also the idea of differing room links for each time the link button is pressed is actually a nice feature, but doesn't work well in all applications. Also, when setup this way, the scheduler of the meeting must join via their calendar and a link instead from the Desktop UI which is a bit counter intuitive. None of these issues are big, but they create training headaches especially if dealing with an end user that is less technically inclined. Further, it seems that with some creative design many of these issues could be overcome without the end user really having to "understand" all of the behind the scenes.
The relationship between the vendor, the reseller and the customer is frustrating at times. I understand the reseller model, but calling a reseller for support to have them file a ticket with Vidyo to get back with us is time consuming and seems a bit counterproductive. In healthcare we depend on near 100% uptime and when there is an issue, I want to have access to the most competent engineers ready to attempt to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Certainly some issues are appropriate for the reseller to manage, but with the training provided by Vidyo typically if we are calling with an issue, the basic troubleshooting is already done and the issue is going to require more than a simple support call. I hope as healthcare becomes a larger focus for Vidyo they will look at a "mission critical" level of support that perhaps allows them to partner with the resellers and dispatch them to handle minor issues and Vidyo can directly handle more complex issues while reducing time to resolution for the customer.
Initially we really did not know a lot about the telehealth space and as we started to get in we were focused in too many areas. We would have been better off to decide where we wanted our specialty to be and spend on energy, money, time and talent on those things. There are many things that are considered telehealth and the exciting thing is that Vidyo can help to enable many of those things as a backbone, but realistically each requires small tweaking to the underlying system and it is easy to bit off more than can be chewed. We quickly learned how significant of a project we had undertaken and attempted to narrow the focus as time has marched on to specific use cases where we feel the value and return for our organization will exist.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 28, 2016
The engagement process went very well and the individuals we worked with were knowledgeable throughout.
A little more responsive with service calls and emails.
Understand the license structure for various environments more thoroughly
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Oct 19, 2016
The basic solution works well, technically. However, lack of inutitive operation has proven to be a barrier to self-started proliferation of this technology. The room systems have proven reliable, generally speaking, however in our environment it is necessary to pursue heavy deployment to desktop and mobile devices. Room system implementation costs have spiralled as we sought to make them more robust - this has marginalised the business case and seriously curtailed expansion. Desktop deployment has proven less successful as the solution seems incredibly sensitive to specific hardware requirements and software confiigration on the desktop. We found vendor partnering essential, but this too presented some challenges due to mis-firing relationship management and product stability issues in the early days (ultimatley software / platform related) but with 3 parties involved there was an unfortunate amount of finger pointing.
Ensure you have adequate infrastructure - bandwidth and environmental controls.
When it works, it works really well.
Technical demands, costs.
Better hardware/environment support - software is WAY too picky for the real world.
A better impementation partner. More clear up-front end state definition to ensure a steady pipeline of investment to grow the soltion (and realise benefits faster). Deploy to desktop first, not room systems.
This is more a reflection of the 3rd party, but very slow support and too much finger pointing (blaming infrastructure without substantive reasoning) was an ongoing frustration.