Healthcare Solutions

Both, though integration is the more common and usually the wiser choice. Building a full EHR from scratch is a multi-year commitment that most organisations should avoid unless they are productising it for a market. The frequent and far better-value engagement is building the layer your existing EHR does not provide — a specialty workflow, a patient-facing application, an analytics platform — and integrating it properly with what you already run.

Video is the easy part and is largely a solved problem. The work is everything around it: eligibility and insurance verification, multi-provider scheduling across time zones and licensure boundaries, waiting-room and queue management, clinical documentation captured during the call rather than after, e-prescribing, and a fallback path for when a patient's connection fails. A platform that only does video well tends to create administrative work rather than remove it.

Yes, and current CMS interoperability rules increasingly require it. Patient access APIs based on FHIR R4 let a patient view records, results and visit history through your portal or a third-party app of their choosing. The design questions that matter are around release timing and context — results that reach a patient before a clinician has interpreted them cause real distress, so most organisations apply rules by result type rather than releasing everything immediately.

We start from the decision the report is meant to support, because dashboards built without that produce screens nobody opens twice. Common ground includes population health views, quality-measure tracking such as HEDIS and MIPS, operational metrics like bed and resource utilisation, and risk stratification. Accuracy of the underlying data model matters far more than visual sophistication here — a beautiful chart drawn from a mis-joined table is worse than no chart.

Yes, with clear boundaries. Clinical NLP for extracting structure from notes, computer vision for imaging workflows, and predictive models for risk scoring are all realistic and in production across the industry. What we insist on is that outputs are presented as decision support with visible confidence and an audit trail, never as an automated clinical decision, and that any model touching diagnosis is evaluated against its regulatory position — FDA Software as a Medical Device classification is a question to answer early, not at launch.

A focused product with one or two integrations typically reaches a usable first release in three to five months. A multi-workflow platform integrating with an EHR, a billing system and imaging is realistically nine to eighteen months to full rollout. The largest variable is rarely engineering — it is vendor integration timelines and internal approval cycles, which is why we map those in discovery and plan the build around them.

That is a requirement we establish first, because it constrains real decisions. Shared workstations with fast user switching, tablets on carts, personal phones under a BYOD policy and older browsers locked by IT policy all impose different limits. We would rather design for the ten-year-old workstation that is genuinely on the ward than build for a device your staff do not have.

You own the code and the data, and both should be exportable in a standard format without our involvement. Cloud accounts and repositories belong in your organisation's name from the beginning. We regard the ability to leave as a design requirement rather than a commercial risk — a client who stays because moving is painful is not a reference, and healthcare organisations have been burned enough by lock-in to be right to ask.