Project guide / Healthcare practices
Make the next care-team step clearer.
A useful practice project helps staff receive, prepare, or review work without losing the patient, source, or accountable owner. Start with one handoff: an intake response, referral packet, draft note, or patient communication. Test the errors that could change care, and measure the work through accepted use rather than counting generated outputs.
Start with the handoff
Name who receives the work and what they must check.
An assistant can prepare a work item without establishing that it is clinically correct or that someone has acted on it. Specify the patient and encounter, original information, unresolved questions, receiving role, and evidence of acceptance. Keep an accessible staff-assisted route available when the system cannot complete the task.
- Administrative does not mean harmless
- A wrong recipient, lost referral, or incorrect appointment detail can affect access to care. Judge the actual failure path, including delay and disclosure.
- Documented does not mean verified
- A generated note can omit a negation, confuse speakers, or add an unsupported finding. The clinician needs an inspectable draft and a clear correction path.
- Routed does not mean resolved
- Putting a task in a queue is not evidence that staff received it, reviewed it, or completed the next step. Keep those states separate.
Four project candidates
Define the useful output before the automation.
These designs need local clinical, privacy, and operational assessment. They assume approved data and named reviewers, and do not provide autonomous triage or care advice.
Prepare an intake response for staff
01Useful handoff: Help staff find unanswered questions and conflicting patient-provided information.
- Starting situation
- Patients repeat details across forms and staff must reconstruct which answers are missing, current, or supplied by a representative.
- Required sources
- Approved questionnaire, patient and respondent identity context, original answers, prior record provenance, and routing rules.
- Assisted preparation
- Suggest field mappings and a source-linked handoff summary. Preserve declined, unknown, unanswered, and not-applicable states instead of filling them in.
- Retained authority
- Staff confirm identity and representative authority; qualified clinicians assess clinical content and urgency through the practice's established process.
- Review artifact
- Original answers beside proposed fields, unresolved conflicts, patient corrections, and an attributable receiving queue.
- Failure to test
- A blank allergy field becomes none, a representative's answer is attributed to the patient, or symptom text bypasses the approved escalation process.
- Trial measure
- Compare repeated questions, incorrect field acceptance, unresolved handoffs, accessible completion, and staff effort through review.
Assemble a referral preparation packet
02Useful handoff: Help the receiving team see what is present, missing, or inconsistent.
- Starting situation
- Referral details and attachments arrive separately and staff repeatedly check the same packet before it reaches a qualified reviewer.
- Required sources
- Patient and referral identifiers, original request, approved document checklist, source versions, and destination requirements.
- Assisted preparation
- Match candidate documents to the checklist, suggest a packet summary, and flag missing attachments or conflicting identifiers without deciding clinical priority.
- Retained authority
- Staff resolve identity and completeness questions; clinicians decide appropriateness, urgency, and required clinical follow-up.
- Review artifact
- A document manifest, checklist status, source-linked summary, open questions, and separate receipt and review states.
- Failure to test
- A similarly named patient's document is included, an old result appears current, or a complete-looking packet is treated as an accepted referral.
- Trial measure
- Compare wrong-document incidents, repeat requests, missed gaps, receipt-to-review time, and total preparation effort.
Prepare a draft encounter note
03Useful handoff: Give the clinician an editable record of the encounter to verify.
- Starting situation
- Documentation preparation is burdensome and the practice can support approved capture, source review, and correction within the clinical workflow.
- Required sources
- Authorized recording or dictation, exact patient and encounter context, participant information, and approved record sources.
- Assisted preparation
- Transcribe and structure a draft while marking uncertain speakers and statements. Keep imported history distinct from what was said or observed in the encounter.
- Retained authority
- The clinician checks material content, edits and signs the exact note. Orders, medication changes, coding, and patient instructions have separate approval paths.
- Review artifact
- An attributable draft, permitted source references, visible edits, clinician attestation, and a record of later amendments.
- Failure to test
- A negation or dose is changed, a caregiver's statement becomes a clinician finding, or template completion invents an examination that did not occur.
- Trial measure
- Compare material omissions and additions, attribution errors, review time, later amendments, and performance across the intended users and settings.
Draft a message from an approved care plan
04Useful handoff: Help staff prepare a clear communication without changing the clinician's instructions.
- Starting situation
- An approved plan exists but preparing patient-facing wording and checking the intended recipient takes repeated staff work.
- Required sources
- Current approved instructions, intended patient or authorized representative, communication preferences, and approved language support.
- Assisted preparation
- Suggest wording and structure with links to the approved plan. Flag additions, omissions, changed numbers, and questions for review.
- Retained authority
- Qualified staff approve clinical content and recipient, then authorize sending. The system does not invent advice, reassurance, or an answer to new symptoms.
- Review artifact
- A marked draft, source plan version, reviewer approval, delivery state, and an owned path for responses.
- Failure to test
- Simplification changes an instruction, a message goes to an unauthorized representative, or delivery is mistaken for patient understanding.
- Trial measure
- Compare substantive corrections, recipient errors, clarification rounds, unowned replies, and total effort through approved communication.
Keep the boundaries visible
Preparation, decisions, and actions need separate evidence.
This matrix is a workflow design aid. Regulatory status depends on the actual function, intended use, and jurisdiction; calling software an assistant does not settle the question.
| Work stage | Possible support | Not established | Accountable owner | Evidence before progression |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information receipt | Organize answers and attachments | Identity, truth or clinical completeness | Receiving staff confirm context | Original information and unresolved gaps |
| Referral preparation | Assemble a source-linked packet | Appropriateness, urgency or acceptance | Staff and clinical referral team | Correct patient, documents and receiving owner |
| Clinical documentation | Produce an editable draft | Verified finding or signed record | Attesting clinician | Material content checked and corrections retained |
| Patient communication | Draft from approved instructions | New advice or patient understanding | Authorized clinical team | Exact content, recipient and response path approved |
| Decision support | Present a defined evidence basis | Diagnosis, treatment or device exemption | Clinical and regulatory owners | Intended-use assessment and appropriate validation |
| Clinical action | Prepare an authorized work item | Permission to order, prescribe or close care | Authorized clinician and workflow owner | Exact authorization, execution state and follow-up |
Run a bounded trial
Test the handoff under the conditions that make it difficult.
Use suitable synthetic or properly authorized material first. Define what the trial must show before it can affect real patient work.
- 01
Choose one receiving team
Name the task, patient group, intended use, exclusions, clinical owner, and operational owner. Specify who acts when the output is incomplete.
- 02
Assess the data and function
Map capture, storage, retrieval, suppliers, retention, and disclosure. Establish applicable privacy, recording, clinical-safety, and device requirements for the actual function.
- 03
Define accepted work
Specify the source evidence, material-error categories, reviewer action, and receipt or attestation needed. Keep acceptance separate from a successful API call.
- 04
Exercise failure and downtime
Test wrong patients, missing records, ambiguous speakers, changed numbers, unavailable reviewers, interrupted delivery, and manual fallback. Verify that work remains owned.
- 05
Review the whole result
Compare baseline effort, material errors, corrections, delays, and accessible completion. Monitor after changes and narrow or stop the trial when the evidence does not support use.
Before patient use
A useful draft still needs a working safety process.
NHS England's ambient-scribing guidance addresses local adoption, review, and monitoring. HHS and FDA sources address different US obligations. The technical checks below need validation against the practice's own setting.
- Bind every item to the right context
- Preserve patient, encounter, source version, author, and purpose. Make uncertain identity a stop condition and test access across patients and representatives.
- Make review practical
- Show the source, uncertainty, and proposed changes where the reviewer works. Allocate time to inspect material content; an approval click alone does not demonstrate a meaningful check.
- Keep a staffed alternative
- Provide an accessible route when someone declines capture, cannot use the interface, or the system fails. Preserve task ownership and approved escalation arrangements during downtime.
- Trace corrections and changes
- Keep draft, accepted, amended, and released versions distinct. Assign incident review and downstream correction owners, and reassess affected uses after model or workflow changes.
Questions for the practice
Resolve what the product demonstration leaves open.
These questions support project selection with qualified clinical, privacy, safety, and regulatory owners. They are not a determination of a product's suitability.
- Should the first project be administrative?
- Often an administrative handoff offers a clearer starting boundary, but assess the actual consequences. Wrong-patient information, missed referrals, and delayed responses can still affect care. Choose a task with an owned fallback and measurable acceptance.
- Does a business associate agreement make an AI tool compliant?
- No single contract establishes that conclusion. For applicable US HIPAA relationships, HHS describes business-associate obligations alongside risk analysis and safeguards. Confirm the actual service, settings, data flow, and responsibilities; other jurisdictions have different requirements.
- Is a clinician review step enough to avoid device regulation?
- Do not assume so. FDA's January 2026 guidance describes multiple criteria for certain non-device clinical decision-support functions. Assess the actual intended use and functionality with qualified regulatory owners. Other jurisdictions apply their own frameworks.
- Can a draft note update medications or issue instructions?
- Keep these as separate actions. A documentation draft has not established the authority or correctness of a medication change, order, or patient instruction. Require the appropriate clinician decision and an attributable action record.
- What would make the trial unsuccessful?
- More material errors, hidden review work, unowned tasks, inaccessible completion, or delayed corrections can outweigh faster preparation. Include those outcomes in the comparison and stop or narrow the trial if staff cannot reliably inspect and recover the work.
Source basis
Sources behind the control model.
- 01
NHS England
Guidance on AI-enabled ambient scribing productsVersion 3, updated 29 July 2026, for England. Informs adoption, clinician review, monitoring, and local safety assessment; no claimed productivity or patient outcomes are adopted here.
- 02
NHS England and MHRA
Medical device regulation for ambient voice technology products29 July 2026 communication on intended functionality, oversight, and local deployment responsibilities. It does not classify the illustrative projects on this page.
- 03
US Department of Health and Human Services
Business AssociatesReviewed 30 July 2026. Explains HIPAA business-associate relationships, agreements, and exceptions, including a patient-portal AI example.
- 04
US Department of Health and Human Services
Guidance on HIPAA and Cloud ComputingUS guidance on cloud-service responsibilities, risk analysis, agreements, and safeguards. A contract or encryption setting alone does not establish compliance.
- 05
US Food and Drug Administration
Clinical Decision Support SoftwareFinal guidance issued 29 January 2026. Explains FDA's approach to clinical decision-support functions and the criteria discussed for non-device CDS.
Start with one real workflow
A Systems Audit is the usual starting point. If the opportunity is already clear, we can move directly into a focused build.
Show Us the WorkflowStart with the free automation readiness checklistOBSERVEQUANTIFYDECIDEBUILD