We reduce the documentation burden in CHC and FNC assessment, review and quality assurance, so qualified people spend their time on judgement rather than assembly.
Evidence is assembled and cited by the system. Eligibility is determined by your clinicians and panels. That boundary is not negotiable and we design to it.
20 minutes. No obligation. No patient information required or requested.
The clinical reasoning in a CHC review takes a fraction of the time attached to it. The rest is gathering records from several places, confirming nothing is missing, writing up evidence against each domain, formatting it for the commissioner and following up when something comes back.
None of that requires a clinical qualification. All of it currently consumes one.
These are the workflows we have actually built and run in a live CHC and Section 117 setting, not a product roadmap.
The system pulls from nurse notes, GP records, care records and previous assessments, assembles evidence against the relevant domains with citations back to source, and drafts the documentation. The assessor reviews, corrects and owns the output.
An agent reviews completed documentation for gaps, inconsistencies and the issues that historically cause send-backs, then flags them for the clinical lead before submission rather than after rejection.
Three-month and annual review clocks tracked automatically, with escalation before something becomes overdue rather than a monthly discovery exercise in a spreadsheet.
Allocation, case state, contact logging and payment gated on quality approval, so nothing is invoiced before the work has passed QA.
CHC eligibility is a statutory decision with a National Framework behind it and a right of appeal attached to it. Any supplier suggesting an algorithm can make that call is either misunderstanding the framework or hoping you do.
Gathers records, assembles evidence against domains, cites the source, flags gaps and drafts documentation.
Reviews the evidence, applies professional judgement, corrects the draft and owns the recommendation.
Makes the eligibility determination. Unchanged by anything we build.
A documented human decision point keeps the workflow outside the solely automated decision rules in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
When a decision is challenged, you need to show reasoning and evidence. Citation back to source is what makes that possible.
Built to DCB0129 principles, working alongside your nominated Clinical Safety Officer.
Automated document generation, AI-assisted drafting and structured audit trails across the full review lifecycle, with clinical quality assurance and human sign-off before anything is finalised.
Read the case studyWe did not arrive at CHC from a generic AI practice. This system was designed around the actual review lifecycle, the QA queue, the send-back reasons and the invoicing that depends on approval, with a clinical lead correcting us throughout.
That is why the boundary between assembly and determination is drawn where it is.
Most CHC teams can tell us the assessment time and not the assembly time. The audit finds the difference, and it is usually the larger number.
If we do not find a meaningful opportunity, we will tell you.
