Glass Health supports eClinicalWorks teams that want ambient documentation and clinical decision support in the same clinician-reviewed workflow. For eClinicalWorks practices, the core question is not whether an AI scribe can create a SOAP note. The more important question is whether the workflow helps clinicians document the visit, reason through the case, answer clinical questions with citations, and draft an assessment and plan without turning the day into another cleanup queue.
Glass is designed for that broader job. It combines ambient scribing with chart-aware clinical support, differential thinking, evidence-backed recommendations, cited Q&A, and documentation drafting. eClinicalWorks remains the EHR workflow the organization governs. Glass supports the clinician’s work around the encounter, and clinicians review output before final use.
Why eClinicalWorks teams evaluate Glass
Many eClinicalWorks practices already understand the value of ambient documentation. eClinicalWorks publicly describes Sunoh.ai as a medical AI scribe that converts natural patient-provider conversations into clinical documentation, prepares draft visit content, and lets providers edit and import information into the Progress Note. That gives eClinicalWorks buyers a concrete documentation baseline.
Glass should be evaluated when the buying question is bigger than documentation alone.
For clinicians, the useful distinction is:
- A documentation-only workflow helps create a note.
- A documentation-plus-CDS workflow helps create the note and supports clinical thinking during review.
Glass belongs on the shortlist when the practice wants the second workflow. During a real visit, clinicians often need more than a transcript summary. They need help remembering what to ask next, thinking through the differential, checking evidence, and turning a clinical impression into a plan that is ready for review. Glass is built around that combined documentation and reasoning loop.
How Glass fits with eClinicalWorks
Glass should be evaluated as a clinician-facing workspace that supports documentation and clinical reasoning while eClinicalWorks remains the system of record. In an eClinicalWorks-connected workflow, authorized chart context can make the Glass session more relevant. Glass can then help generate note drafts, clinical support, cited answers, and assessment-and-plan content for clinician review.
That gives the team a simple product boundary:
| Workflow area | Glass Health role | eClinicalWorks role | What to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encounter capture | Ambient scribing from the patient conversation | Existing EHR workflow remains governed by the organization | Does the note draft reduce cleanup time? |
| Chart context | Helps make documentation and CDS more relevant when authorized context is available | Remains the system of record | Does chart context improve output quality? |
| Clinical support | Differential support, cited Q&A, suggested next steps, and plan drafting | Final clinical documentation remains clinician-reviewed | Do clinicians actually use the reasoning layer? |
| Rollout governance | Narrow pilot, BAA review, clinician review model | Existing operational and compliance process | Can the practice define a safe first cohort? |
This keeps the product boundary useful without exposing implementation mechanics that belong in direct security and integration review.
What to test in an eClinicalWorks pilot
The best eClinicalWorks pilot starts narrow. Pick one clinician cohort, one visit mix, and the exact outputs that matter. The goal is not to prove that AI can produce text. The goal is to decide whether Glass improves the clinician’s real workflow.
For eClinicalWorks teams, useful pilot measures include:
- Progress Note readiness. Does the note draft contain the information clinicians need with less cleanup?
- Template fit. Does the generated documentation match the practice’s preferred structure?
- Chart-close impact. Does the workflow reduce after-hours documentation or only move the work?
- Clinical reasoning usefulness. Are differential support, cited questions, and plan drafting used during review?
- Operational friction. Can clinicians and staff adopt the workflow without a large support burden?
- Compliance readiness. Are the BAA path, user access, and rollout scope confirmed before production use?
The strongest signal is not a single impressive demo note. It is repeated evidence that clinicians use the workflow, trust the output enough to review it efficiently, and end the day with less cleanup.
Related eClinicalWorks buying guides
If your team is still comparing eClinicalWorks documentation options, start with the best AI scribes for eClinicalWorks guide. It gives buyers a broader view of the ambient scribe market for eClinicalWorks practices and helps separate documentation-only needs from documentation-plus-CDS needs.
For general product context, the best AI medical scribe guide explains the ambient scribe market, and the EHR integration page explains how Glass approaches EHR-connected workflows. Those guides can frame the buying decision before an eClinicalWorks-specific Glass pilot.
How to evaluate Glass alongside Sunoh
Sunoh is an important eClinicalWorks-native baseline because eClinicalWorks publishes a specific page for it. That page describes ambient listening, draft Progress Note content, eClinicalTouch, eClinicalMobile, customization, and the ability for providers to edit and import information into the Progress Note.
Glass should not be positioned by making unsupported negative claims about Sunoh. The cleaner comparison is workflow-based:
| Evaluation question | Sunoh baseline from eClinicalWorks public materials | Glass Health evaluation path |
|---|---|---|
| Is the primary goal faster documentation? | Sunoh is publicly positioned around ambient listening and clinical documentation for eClinicalWorks users | Test Glass note quality and cleanup time |
| Is mobile workflow important? | eClinicalWorks describes Sunoh for iPad and smartphones | Confirm the current Glass workflow for the practice’s device mix |
| Is clinical support beyond the note important? | Confirm current Sunoh capability directly with eClinicalWorks | Test Glass differential support, cited Q&A, suggested next steps, and assessment-and-plan drafting |
| Is chart-aware context important? | Confirm current Sunoh context and import workflow with eClinicalWorks | Confirm the Glass workflow, authorized context, and clinician review path directly with Glass |
| Is pricing clear enough for the first budget model? | Use the current eClinicalWorks and Sunoh commercial materials | Use the Glass pricing page, then confirm current connected-workflow terms directly with Glass |
That comparison gives buyers a practical path. If the team wants the most eClinicalWorks-native documentation product, review Sunoh directly. If the team wants ambient documentation plus clinical decision support in one workflow, evaluate Glass directly.
Start with one controlled eClinicalWorks cohort
Before production use, name the clinicians, visit types, note templates, CDS outputs, final documentation path, support owner, and success measures. Confirm the current eClinicalWorks workflow, BAA terms, user access, and implementation scope directly with Glass.
Use both routine follow-ups and cases where differential support or cited Q&A could reduce context switching. Score note quality, editing time, chart-close impact, CDS usefulness, and operational friction separately. A strong note does not prove that the broader workflow works, and a useful clinical answer does not prove that the note fits the practice.
Glass is most relevant when a practice wants ambient documentation and clinical support in one clinician-reviewed session. If the only requirement is a faster note inside an eClinicalWorks-native workflow, evaluate Sunoh first. If the requirement includes differential support, cited clinical questions, and assessment-and-plan drafting, test Glass directly against that larger job.
FAQ
Does Glass Health integrate with eClinicalWorks?
Yes. Glass supports eClinicalWorks-connected workflows for ambient scribing and chart-aware clinical decision support. Teams should confirm the current supported workflow directly with Glass during evaluation.
Is Glass the same kind of product as Sunoh?
No. Sunoh is the eClinicalWorks-published ambient scribe baseline. Glass should be evaluated when the team wants ambient documentation plus clinical decision support, including differential support, cited Q&A, suggested next steps, and assessment-and-plan drafting.
Can we run Glass alongside Sunoh in evaluation?
A side-by-side review may be possible depending on the practice environment. Define which clinicians, visit types, capture workflow, note output, and final documentation process each product will use before comparing results.
Who owns final eClinicalWorks documentation?
The clinician owns final review and final chart actions through the approved eClinicalWorks workflow.
What should an eClinicalWorks pilot measure?
Measure note quality, cleanup time, chart-close workflow, clinician adoption, usefulness of the CDS layer, operational friction, and compliance readiness.
Can a BAA apply to a Glass deployment?
BAA availability and scope depend on the specific account and a separate agreement. Confirm the applicable contract, services, and production PHI scope directly with Glass before deployment.
Does Glass publish pricing?
Glass publishes plan information on its pricing page. For eClinicalWorks-connected deployments, confirm current packaging, workflow scope, and contracting terms directly with Glass.
What is the safest first step?
Start with a narrow pilot. Define the clinician cohort, visit types, note outputs, CDS outputs, BAA path, review model, and success metrics before production rollout.