User Reviews

USER REVIEWS - Sorted by Date


"I would recommend this to any hospital looking for an easy way to drill down into their accounts rec"
5.0
Version Info: N/A
Purchased Date: January 01, 1999

Financial Analyst, Abington Memorial Hospital
November 21, 2008
John Gushue
close

Ratings Breakdown

Ease of Use
5.0
Implementation
5.0
Fits Needs
5.0
Features
5.0
Customer Service
5.0

Pros

Real time access to data in our patient accounting system. Easy to use with Microsoft Access. Also,easy to teach others and spread out to the organization. This is a great and flexible reporting and follow up tool.

Cons

I use with Microsoft Access. A system to schedule reports would help.

Overall

I would recommend this to any hospital looking for an easy way to drill down into their accounts receivable. Using with Access makes it a pont and click procedure (no need to write SQL or report strings, etc...)

"Great product."
5.0
Version Info: 10.5
Purchased Date: August 01, 2001

IT Manager, Marsh Electronics, Inc.
November 19, 2008
Tom Scalish
close

Ratings Breakdown

Ease of Use
5.0
Implementation
4.0
Fits Needs
5.0
Features
5.0
Customer Service
5.0

Pros

Allows safe and quick access to our database while being transparent to the user.

Cons

Maintenance costs are on the high side.

Overall

Great product.
We are developing a new application with the N-tier license.

"This version was a bit of a struggle to get implemented, but now seems to be working well. "
3.0
Version Info: 10.5
Purchased Date: N/A

Software Developer, DST Output
November 19, 2008
Mike Alvarez
close

Ratings Breakdown

Ease of Use
3.0
Implementation
1.0
Fits Needs
4.0
Features
3.0
Customer Service
5.0

Pros

Customer support was great and seemed eager to help us whenever needed. We always dealt specifically with Curt Jensen. He was always great to work with and very helpful.

Cons

This version of the product that we purchased (DISAM) seemed like it hadn't been tested sufficiently. We spent several months trying to get it to work for us before finally finding out that it was a couple bugs in the software.

Overall

This version was a bit of a struggle to get implemented, but now seems to be working well. We also had good results from the previous version (CONNX 8.6 for RMS) that we had been using since approximately 2002.