It is not uncommon for IT directors to discover the full extent of their endoscopy vendor landscape only when something breaks. The image capture system from one company stops talking to the documentation software from another. The scope tracking database won’t export data in a format the reporting tool understands.

If you map out a typical endoscopy technology environment, you’ll find equipment manufacturers selling proprietary imaging systems, separate documentation platforms, specialized scope reprocessing vendors, various storage solutions, and integration layers to connect everything with Epic. Each vendor made sense when initially purchased. No one planned to create a complex ecosystem. It just happened, one reasonable decision at a time.

The problem isn’t that any single vendor does bad work. The problem is that managing multiple vendors for one clinical service line creates hidden costs and multiplies risk.

Why This Matters

Recent healthcare IT security research shows that 56% of healthcare organizations experienced a data breach connected to third-party vendors in a two-year period. The average healthcare data breach now costs over $10 million. When the Change Healthcare cyberattack hit in 2024, hospitals nationwide discovered how dependent they were on third-party systems.

Security teams understand that every vendor with network access represents a potential vulnerability. For endoscopy specifically, systems handle protected health information, store procedure images, track which scopes were used on which patients, and connect to hospital networks. A compromise in any of these could expose patient data or disrupt operations.

Security risk is only part of the story. The operational burden of managing multiple vendors adds up in ways most organizations don’t fully calculate.

The Hidden Costs

IT teams know their software licensing fees. What doesn’t show up clearly is staff time managing vendor relationships, productivity lost to integration problems, or inefficiency from disconnected workflows.

Healthcare organizations typically spend over 5,000 hours monthly on vendor management when accounting for security staff conducting assessments, procurement handling contracts, clinical staff providing input, and IT managing integrations and troubleshooting.

For endoscopy, each vendor needs separate contract negotiation, security assessments, HIPAA agreements, and Epic integration maintenance. Clinical staff need training on each system with different login credentials and interfaces. An endoscopy nurse might log into one system for images, switch to another for documentation, check a third for scope reprocessing, and access a fourth for quality reports.

Multi-site health systems face compounding complexity. Location A uses Olympus® equipment with one software vendor. Location B uses Fujifilm® equipment with different software. Location C uses Pentax® equipment with yet another setup. Clinical staff can’t float between locations. Training can’t standardize. Enterprise reporting requires manual data aggregation.

When systems don’t integrate properly, staff create workarounds. They manually transcribe information between systems or skip workflow steps that require too much effort. These workarounds hide the true cost because they don’t generate support tickets or budget line items. They just drain productivity.

Enterprise Implications

Health systems that grow through acquisition inherit different technology stacks at each location. IT leadership suddenly takes responsibility for supporting multiple environments. Clinical staff can’t easily move between locations. Quality measurement across the enterprise becomes difficult. Purchasing leverage decreases when spending is divided among multiple vendors.

Some organizations try forced standardization, mandating one vendor’s product across all locations. This meets resistance when clinical staff don’t want to abandon familiar systems. Implementation timelines stretch. Costs increase as interfaces need customization for different workflows.

The alternative is accepting permanent fragmentation and high ongoing support costs. Neither option is attractive, which is why vendor consolidation deserves strategic consideration.

What Consolidation Actually Means

Vendor consolidation doesn’t mean reducing to a single vendor for everything. That creates concentration risk. The goal is to reduce unnecessary proliferation while maintaining redundancy.

For endoscopy, consolidation means finding solutions that address multiple needs within a single platform. NewCura demonstrates this model. EndoManager® Imaging handles image capture while integrating with Epic Lumens through standard HL7, DICOM and API interfaces. EndoManager® Report Writer addresses procedure documentation with GIQuIC certification. ScopeCycle® Scope Tracking handles endoscope reprocessing compliance. Three integrated modules from one vendor replace what otherwise requires three or more separate vendors with different integration requirements.

The key is whether solutions work together by design rather than requiring custom integration. NewCura’s vendor-neutral equipment support means organizations don’t need to standardize on Fujifilm®, Olympus®, or Pentax® equipment just to use consistent software.

This addresses several problems. IT teams manage fewer vendor relationships. Integration maintenance becomes simpler. Clinical staff training standardizes. Data flows more reliably. Security assessments become more thorough when focused on fewer vendors rather than spread across many.

How to Approach Consolidation

Start by documenting what vendors support endoscopy across all locations. Capture vendor names, contract values, integration points, data flows, support arrangements, security status, and user satisfaction. Understanding which systems create the most friction provides insight into where consolidation delivers the most value.

Get alignment on priorities. Clinical staff may be frustrated by systems which IT considers adequate. IT may struggle with integration issues clinical staff don’t realize exist. Security may have concerns nobody else sees.

Evaluate consolidation options against specific criteria.

• Does a consolidated platform address functionality needs currently met by multiple solutions?
• Can it support the equipment mix across locations?
• What level of Epic integration comes standard?
• How do compliance capabilities compare for ANSI/AAMI ST91 tracking and OP-29 reporting?

Talk to organizations that have deployed the proposed platform across multiple sites. Understand what worked, what proved harder than expected, and what ongoing support looks like. Vendors can demonstrate anything in controlled environments. Real-world performance at scale determines whether consolidation delivers benefits.

Plan implementation to manage risk. Pilot deployments validate assumptions. Phased approaches spread risk across time. Maintain backup options during transitions. Allow adequate time for implementation, training, and stabilization at each location.

When Consolidation Makes Sense

Consolidation makes sense when current vendor proliferation creates visible operational problems. If integration failures disrupt workflows regularly, if clinical staff complain about managing multiple systems, or if security assessments are perpetually behind because too many vendors need evaluation, consolidation addresses real issues.

Consolidation also makes sense when preparing for growth. Adding new locations to a consolidated platform is simpler than adding them to a fragmented vendor landscape.

Consolidation makes less sense when current systems work adequately. If existing vendors provide good integration, responsive support, and satisfied users, replacing them just to reduce vendor count creates disruption without benefit.

The Strategic Question

The fundamental question isn’t whether to consolidate. The question is whether your current vendor landscape serves your strategic needs or is it just an artifact of independent purchasing decisions over time?

• If current vendors support operations effectively, integrate reliably with Epic, provide acceptable security and compliance, and scale appropriately, then consolidation may not be urgent.
• If vendor proliferation creates ongoing friction, excessive IT burden, multiplied security risk, prevents standardization, or limits scalability, then consolidation deserves serious consideration.

The costs of vendor fragmentation often remain hidden in staff time and operational inefficiency. Making those costs visible is the first step toward determining whether consolidation would deliver value.

Health systems should audit their endoscopy vendor landscape, calculate true costs including hidden burden, assess security risk, and evaluate whether consolidated platforms could deliver comparable functionality with reduced complexity. The analysis may conclude current vendors serve the organization well, or it may reveal consolidation opportunities. Either conclusion is valid if based on thorough assessment rather than assumptions.