Choosing endoscopy software for a multi-hospital health system is more complicated than it appears. The decision affects Epic integration quality, compliance tracking, equipment flexibility, and costs across dozens of locations for years to come.

Most vendor evaluations focus on features and demos. But features don’t reveal whether the Epic Lumens integration works without manual workarounds, whether the software supports equipment from Fujifilm®, Olympus®, and Pentax® without forcing standardization, or whether the vendor has successfully deployed across 10+ hospital locations before.

Health systems performing over 1,000 endoscopy procedures annually per location need software that handles clinical documentation, scope reprocessing compliance, quality measurement, and revenue integrity at scale. Getting this wrong means years of duplicate documentation, compliance gaps, and frustrated clinicians. Getting it right means seamless integration that reduces administrative burden.

This guide breaks down the evaluation criteria that matter for enterprise deployments: Epic integration architecture, multi-site scalability, equipment vendor neutrality, compliance tracking, and total cost of ownership.

Establishing Clear Evaluation Criteria

Health system IT leaders need objective criteria for comparing endoscopy software solutions. The evaluation framework should address four primary areas:

• Integration requirements – How the software connects with Epic and handles data exchange
• Operational scalability – Whether the solution supports multi-site deployment and standardization
• Regulatory compliance – Built-in support for OP-29, ANSI/AAMI ST91, and audit requirements
• Total cost of ownership – Complete five-year costs including implementation, interfaces, and support

Understanding what distinguishes enterprise-grade solutions from department-level tools helps narrow the field to viable candidates.

Epic integration represents the primary technical requirement for health systems using this EHR platform. Epic Lumens is a specialized endoscopy reporting module within the Epic EHR that combines endoscopy images from capture systems with post-procedure documentation tools. Software vendors must demonstrate how their solutions connect with Epic Lumens to support seamless workflow between image capture, procedure documentation, and the patient’s comprehensive medical record.

True integration extends beyond basic HL7 interfaces. Epic Lumens integrates with external systems like PACS and VNA for seamless endoscopy workflows and data management, ensuring efficient workflows and facilitating access to patient data. Health systems should verify that endoscopy software candidates support:

• Bidirectional data exchange with Epic without manual intervention
• Structured data formats that populate discrete fields in Epic Lumens
• Real-time synchronization that eliminates duplicate documentation
• Patient demographic pulls from Epic registration
• Procedure report pushback to the patient chart
• Automated charge capture integration

Testing these capabilities during vendor demonstrations reveals whether claimed integration matches actual functionality.

Equipment compatibility requires careful assessment. Most health systems operate endoscopy equipment from multiple manufacturers including Fujifilm®, Olympus®, and Pentax®. Endoscopy software that only integrates fully with one equipment brand forces organizations into restrictive choices: standardize all equipment to a single vendor across all sites or accept limited software functionality in rooms with other equipment. Neither option serves enterprise strategy well.

Vendor-neutral endoscopy software that supports multiple equipment manufacturers provides operational flexibility. This approach recognizes that equipment manufacturers excel at developing advanced imaging technology while software specialists focus on EHR integration, regulatory compliance, and enterprise deployment. Health systems benefit from selecting best-in-class components rather than accepting compromises inherent in single-vendor solutions.

Enterprise Deployment Considerations

Multi-site implementation introduces complexity that single-hospital deployments never encounter. Health systems need endoscopy software that supports standardized workflows across locations while accommodating legitimate variations in procedure volume, case complexity, and departmental structure. A 500-bed academic medical center performing therapeutic endoscopy has different requirements than a 150-bed community hospital focused on screening procedures.

Successful enterprise deployments typically follow a phased approach: implement at a pilot site, validate workflows under real-world conditions, refine processes based on lessons learned, then accelerate rollout to remaining locations. Software vendors with documented experience in multi-site health system deployments bring knowledge about realistic timelines, common implementation challenges, and effective change management strategies.

Support structure matters at enterprise scale. Health systems with endoscopy programs across ten or twenty locations need vendor partners who provide dedicated implementation resources during rollout, technical support teams that understand complex multi-site architectures, and account management that addresses strategic needs rather than individual support tickets.

Compliance and Quality Requirements

OP-29 is a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measure that ensures endoscopists recommend appropriate follow-up intervals after colonoscopy in average-risk patients. Endoscopy software should include structured documentation tools that facilitate OP-29 compliance through workflow design rather than requiring manual tracking.

ANSI/AAMI ST91:2021 provides comprehensive guidance for processing flexible endoscopes including precleaning, leak-testing, cleaning, packaging, storage, high-level disinfecting, and sterilizing. Endoscope reprocessing tracking represents critical patient safety and regulatory compliance function. Software solutions should:

• Document each step of the reprocessing cycle with timestamps
• Maintain complete audit trails for regulatory inspections
• Track individual scope usage from procedure through reprocessing
• Monitor reprocessing equipment parameters and failures
• Generate compliance reports for infection control committees
• Support quality assurance programs that verify proper scope handling

Multiple peer-reviewed publications have documented breaches in endoscope processing that led to patient exposure and subsequent infections. Comprehensive tracking systems help health systems identify process failures before they result in patient harm and provide documentation for regulatory inspections.

Quality measurement capabilities enable ongoing program improvement. Endoscopy software should capture procedure-specific metrics, support benchmarking across locations, facilitate adverse event analysis, and generate reports for quality committees without requiring manual data compilation.

Integration Architecture and Interoperability

Health systems should evaluate the specific integration capabilities that vendors offer. Integration options include HL7 and FHIR to ensure patient data exchanges securely and consistently. Software candidates should demonstrate their integration architecture, explain how they handle Epic upgrades, and provide reference customers who have successfully implemented at similar scale.

Image management requires particular attention. EndoManager® 3.0 is a cost-effective capture solution that sends captured images immediately to Epic Lumens to be included with the physician’s post-operative note without needing a VNA storage solution. Understanding whether proposed solutions require vendor-neutral archive infrastructure or can transmit images directly to Epic Lumens affects both implementation complexity and ongoing operational costs.

Multi-vendor equipment support should be validated through demonstrations rather than accepted based on vendor claims. Health systems should ask to see automated image capture from different manufacturers’ equipment, observe how the software handles various video processors, and understand what manual workarounds staff must perform when equipment compatibility is incomplete.

Total Cost of Ownership Analysis

Licensing fees represent only one component of endoscopy software costs. Health systems should request detailed cost projections that extend across a five-year period to enable accurate comparison between solutions. Key cost components include:

• Software licensing – Per-site, per-room, or per-procedure pricing models
• Implementation services – Vendor resources for deployment, training, and go-live support
• Interface development – Custom integration work required beyond standard Epic Lumens connectivity
• Staff training – Initial education and ongoing competency maintenance
• Ongoing support – Annual service fees and technical support access
• Upgrade costs – Fees for major version updates and Epic compatibility upgrades
• Internal IT resources – Staff time for project management, testing, and maintenance

Modular deployment options provide financial flexibility. Some organizations need comprehensive functionality across all locations immediately. Others prefer implementing core documentation capabilities first and adding advanced features such as quality analytics or automated compliance reporting as programs mature. Software architectures that support phased deployment allow health systems to match investment timing to operational readiness.

Interface costs deserve specific scrutiny. Software vendors that offer proven Epic Lumens integration should have largely standardized connection processes that minimize custom development. Solutions requiring substantial professional services fees to build Epic interfaces suggest that claimed integration capabilities are less mature than initial presentations indicate.

Implementation Success Factors

Implementation methodology significantly influences project outcomes. Software vendors with enterprise deployment experience provide structured implementation frameworks, comprehensive training programs, super-user development strategies, and realistic timelines that account for organizational change management. Organizations should evaluate vendors based on their implementation approach rather than assuming similar software features will yield similar results.

Staff training directly affects software adoption and clinical efficiency. Physicians, nurses, and endoscopy technicians need role-specific training that addresses their workflow concerns. Training programs should include hands-on practice in test environments, quick reference materials for common tasks, and ongoing support during the initial weeks after go-live when staff are adjusting to new processes.

Governance structures that bring together IT leadership, clinical champions, and operational stakeholders from project inception help ensure alignment on priorities, success criteria, and decision-making authority. Projects that lack clear governance often stall when disagreements emerge during implementation.

Vendor Selection Framework

Health systems should structure their vendor evaluation process around the criteria that matter most for enterprise deployment. Priority evaluation areas include:

• Epic integration certification – Documented Epic Lumens compatibility with proven implementations
• Multi-vendor equipment support – Native integration with Fujifilm®, Olympus®, and Pentax® devices
• Enterprise deployment experience – Documented multi-site implementations at comparable health systems
• Compliance tracking capabilities – Built-in support for OP-29, ANSI/AAMI ST91, and audit trails
• Scalable architecture – Ability to support growth from initial sites to full enterprise deployment
• Support infrastructure – Dedicated implementation teams and enterprise-level technical support

Reference customers operating at similar scale and complexity provide valuable insights into vendor capabilities. Health systems should speak with IT leaders and clinical stakeholders at reference sites to understand implementation experiences, ongoing support quality, product stability, and whether vendors delivered on commitments.

Product roadmaps indicate vendor investment in endoscopy software development. Understanding whether vendors actively enhance their endoscopy platforms or primarily maintain existing functionality helps predict how well solutions will adapt to evolving regulatory requirements, Epic upgrades, and changing clinical workflows.

Making the Decision

The best endoscopy software for any health system depends on specific organizational context including current Epic implementation, equipment infrastructure, procedure volume distribution across sites, compliance tracking needs, available IT resources, and budget constraints. Rather than seeking a universally “best” solution, IT leaders should identify the solution that best fits their enterprise requirements.

Organizations already running Epic should prioritize vendors with proven Epic Lumens integration and certification. Middleware solutions like NewCura’s Epic Lumens platform demonstrate how modern integration approaches can deliver sophisticated functionality, from one-click exam starts to seamless scope tracking with ScopeCycle®, while maintaining vendor neutrality across Fujifilm®, Olympus®, Pentax® and other camera systems. Multi-site health systems need vendors with documented experience deploying across distributed organizations. Systems with mixed equipment infrastructure particularly benefit from vendor-neutral software that supports multiple device inputs including specialized modalities like EUS, EBUS, and SpyGlass®.

The partnership approach, where equipment manufacturers focus on imaging innovation while software specialists deliver enterprise integration and regulatory compliance, offers advantages over single-vendor strategies that require one company to excel at hardware engineering, enterprise software development, and health system IT integration simultaneously. Solutions that provide scalability from single procedure rooms to full enterprise deployments enable organizations to validate their approach before committing to system-wide implementation.

Health systems should evaluate endoscopy software based on Epic integration quality, multi-site deployment capabilities, compliance tracking comprehensiveness, equipment vendor neutrality, and total cost of ownership. Modern capture solutions that send HD images directly to Epic Lumens without requiring separate VNA infrastructure can significantly reduce both implementation complexity and ongoing costs. The evaluation process should include technical validation of integration claims, conversations with reference customers, review of implementation methodologies, and analysis of vendor financial stability and product investment. The goal is selecting a vendor partner capable of supporting the organization’s endoscopy program across its entire lifecycle rather than simply purchasing software features.