Specialist patient care coordination system
The team combines the patient's tests, procedures and control actions. The results obtained and the patient's responses are communicated to a specialist who decides on further care.
Consultations, studies, procedures and control visits are planned separately. It is not always visible what outcome or solution is needed before moving on to the next stage. It is unclear to the patient where and when to apply further. The team repeats the debugging, and the designated action may take time due to an unresolved organizational issue.
How the solution works
- The team aligns the care stages of a particular patient and their conditions.
- Planned actions are carried out, and the required results are collected as well as further responses from the patient.
- A review by a specialist confirms the follow-up or returns a plan to change.
Key challenges
- Specialized treatment pathway fragmented between stages
- Clinical protocols and exceptions apply in different ways
- Consents and specialized documents are manually managed
- Multidisciplinary solutions fragmented
- Long-term monitoring of condition and results varies
Solution capabilities
Patient Stages
The plan established by the specialists refers to the necessary facts, order and reviewers without turning all specialties into a single procedure.
Team Solutions
The conclusion of the discussion is communicated to the specific executor with the action and term. The change of plan preserves the cause and the previous version.
Consents and information
The patient is provided with information relevant to the particular decision. The changed treatment initiates the need to verify the relevance of the consent.
Further measurements
The indicator or questionnaire has the intended purpose, time, method and responsible reviewer. The missing answer is not marked with a normal result.
The Review Continued
The specialist accepts the conclusion regarding the data received, and the required action returns to the patient's plan. The patient receives a response addressed to him and limits on the use of the channel.
Business context
- Specialized treatment pathway fragmented between stages
- Consultations, studies, procedures and control visits are planned separately. It is not always visible what outcome or solution is needed before moving on to the next stage. It is unclear to the patient where and when to apply further. The team repeats the debugging, and the designated action may take time due to an unresolved organizational issue.
- Clinical protocols and exceptions apply in different ways
- The clinical protocols applied and their changes are kept in separate documents. The basis of the specific case deviation and the decision of the specialist are not always linked to the patient's plan. It is difficult for the team to explain why a particular course has been chosen and what is already agreed upon. When transferring a patient, another specialist has to undergo additional background checks.
- Consents and specialized documents are manually managed
- Specialized service documents have different versions and presentation times. It is not always clear which information is given to the patient and what administrative action he has already taken. Prior to the procedure, employees re-check the submissions, and the patient may need to repeat the action. The lack is noticed late and can delay the planned phase.
- Multidisciplinary solutions fragmented
- The findings of several specialists and the decisions of the consistium are stored in different records. It is not always appointed who will coordinate the overall plan and inform the patient. The patient waits longer for a clear answer about the further progress. It is more difficult for the team to verify that the decision reached its executors.
- Long-term monitoring of condition and results varies
- Control tests, questionnaires and other observational data are collected separately. Comparisons of previous results and missed controls are not always visible to the specialist. It is more difficult to spot a change in time that requires a review by the specialist. It may be unclear to the patient what data to provide and when the next evaluation is scheduled.
- It is clearer to the patient what is happening between the care steps
- Specialized services can include multiple specialists, research, and longer monitoring. The coordinated course helps to explain the next intended action and communicate the resulting information to the specialist responsible. It is easier for the patient to follow the agreed plan, and the team sees incomplete coordination issues.
Core features
- Patient Stages
- Team Solutions
- Consents and information
- Further measurements
- The Review Continued
Key integrations
- Clinical and Specialized Systems
- Facts relevant to the investigation or procedure and the authorized outcome of the enforcement.
- Document, Planning and Transmission Processes
- The consent version, the appropriate time, and the acceptance of the other team apply.
- Clinical Path of Treatment
- Individual goals, review conditions and a follow-up decision.
- Sources of the patient, laboratory or suitable facility
- Data provided by the patient, time of their receipt and known defects in accuracy or reliability.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Time of data screening for the pre-procedure
16–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 40-70% of information searches and repeated cross-checks can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure employee minutes for a comparable stage of preparation to match.
Number of significant submissions not reviewed in time
2–12%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that the controls described can address 10-30% of discrepancies. That share is assumed to fall by 20-40%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Count significant submissions unreviewed by program term.
Part of the negative feedback on the follow-up plan explanation
4–15%Decreasing
Indicative assumption: 15-30% of negative reviews relate to an unexplained sequence of other supervisory actions. The solution could reduce this proportion by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; the assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.
When a company starts collecting reviews, negative reviews about the explanation of the follow-up plan are counted from all evaluations received on the topic. The same method of evaluation is applied before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Several specialists are involved in the care of the patient, and their approvals are collected by the staff through phone calls or correspondence.
- Continuing care data is obtained, but it is unclear who and when reviews them and prescribes follow-up.
Project scope and implementation
The project combines the supervisory stages and specialist tasks with existing clinical systems. Their data collection or documentation functions are used where they are appropriate. Only the missing coordination and information flow is additionally developed according to the responsibilities set by the institution.