I am an implementation analyst/template developer with a large MSO, and we've been trying to implement NG EMR for over 3 years. I will give NG credit for recognizing the flaws in their templates and QA processes; NG has put a lot of effort into improving the core templates and fixing bugs. The upcoming 7.9 version of the templates looks very promising. But the previous and current versions were/are a mess, requiring several patches and client customization to fix all sorts of minor and critical errors. Upgrades to new versions of the templates are nothing short of nightmarish. The reviewer's claims of "seamless", "quick" and "effortless" navigation through the product are, to be polite, vastly exaggerated. The EMR product is difficult to implement, difficult to maintain, and requires advanced knowledge of template design and SQL to customize effectively. As I said, NG deserves kudos for attempting to address these problems. But small practices without strong IT resources should evaluate NG EMR very cautiously. Yes, it demos very well. The cardiology templates LOOK great, for example. But underneath the hood, it's a different and often frustrating experience.