for the physician and the clinic
Many can read an electrocardiogram — almost no one closes the case with a document
The physician receives the output of an algorithm and still types the protocol by hand, assembles the structured medical document and submits it to the registry manually. At the same time there are physically not enough functional-diagnostics physicians: the flow of studies is set by the health-screening norm, and the specialist is not everywhere.
| Without digitization | With digitization |
|---|---|
| The electrocardiogram waits in a queue to be described: there is no functional-diagnostics physician in every room | The draft conclusion is ready by the time the physician sits down to the case |
| The physician measures the intervals and types the protocol by hand | The physician confirms and may add a comment instead of typing from scratch |
| The structured medical document is assembled separately | The document is formed and signed at a click in the same window |
| A rejection by the registry comes to light after submission | The completeness of the mandatory fields is checked before submission |
| The patient’s recording arrives as a picture, or does not arrive at all | The patient’s electrocardiogram reaches the physician as an analyzed case |
Who this is for
Where this works
| Who | The pain | Readiness of the loop |
|---|---|---|
| The functional-diagnostics room of a polyclinic | the flow of health-screening electrocardiograms, the physician is the bottleneck, the protocol is typed by hand | the core is ready; submission to the registry is what remains of the operator’s loop |
| A district hospital with no functional-diagnostics physician of its own | electrocardiograms are recorded, there is no one to read them, the description waits for days | requires remote access for a physician to be organized; the technology is the same |
| A centralized regional reading center | manual analysis of the flow from dozens of organizations, with no single document | the technology exists; a multi-user queue and a service-level agreement are needed |
| A private network and health-check programs | the quality of descriptions varies, and the patient needs the document at once | the core is ready |
| The admissions department of a hospital | the time to a description is critical | urgent alerting exists; the scenario requires separate work on response time |
| Occupational and periodic examinations | a mass flow, a legally significant conclusion is mandatory | the batch mode is not described |
How it is built
What changes in the work
Three qualitative properties we answer for:
by construction — a divergence between what is visible in the signal and what is written in the protocol is excluded: the text of the conclusion is built out of the findings;
explicitly — defects in the quality of the recording are shown explicitly instead of dissolving into the text;
reproducibly — the same recording gives the same result, because behind the output stands a versioned rule.
Recordings of different lengths are processed — from 30 seconds on a wearable device to 24-hour Holter recordings.
What backs it up
What is included
The physician's workplace
a clinic, a network
- intake of the study and a draft conclusion
- authorization with the physician's qualified signature
- a structured medical document
- the audit trail of the analysis
- the physician's remark goes de-identified into the analysis loop
Per physician per month
The flow of studies
a polyclinic, a reading center
- everything from the physician's workplace
- a queue and distribution across physicians
- reporting on the flow
Per study or per package
The regional loop
a regional information center
- several organizations on one workplace
- integration with the regional medical system
- submission of documents to the registry
Subscription and volume
Prices are not published: the composition and the charging are discussed after a conversation about volumes. The way in is a pilot with a before-and-after measurement.
What backs it up
How this is embedded into your medical system
The connection is discussed in the pilot. The requirements for the customer’s loop follow order No. 205n of the Ministry of Health.
What backs it up
A physician’s disagreement improves the system
A physician’s rejection does not silently rewrite the document. The remark goes de-identified into the analysis loop, where a specialist refines the rule — with an author and a version. The longer a clinic works, the more precise the rules, and this accumulation belongs to the platform, not to a single installation.
What backs it up
The document and its submission
The document is formed and signed in the same window; submission to the registry — once the operator’s loop is ready.
Who else
Other doors
If you are reading this not on behalf of a clinic:
For private physicians
A physician in their own practice or a remote reader
Open →For partners
A medical-system vendor, an operator or an integrator
Open →For OEM manufacturers
A manufacturer of electrocardiographs or recorders
Open →For you and your family
You want to work it out yourself or to record someone close to you
Open →A pilot starts with a conversation about volumes, not with a demonstration.
Write to us Limits and responsibility