Every decision, captured. Every gap, explained.

Every clinical decision your HCPs make, captured with the reasoning behind it and scored against your objectives.

+33%

Diagnostic accuracy

Reached the correct differential

+35%

Guideline adherence

Correct dosing for the severity

+29%

Treatment modification

Therapy held when it should be

-21%

Delayed intervention

Therapy continued despite suspicion

One program, one cohort, measured before and after in-case feedback. Every figure on this page comes from that same case.

The actions they took

The case: a patient on treatment develops a new symptom. Progression, infection, or a side effect of the treatment itself.

Required workup ordered before deciding52% → 81%

Therapy held or adjusted on suspicion31% → 60%

Correct dose selected19% → 54%

Urgent referral made when indicated42% → 73%

Before feedback After feedback

The choices they made

One decision point in full. Where a message lands, and where adoption stalls.

Before feedback

After feedback

The recommended option 33% → 71%
Default escalation 37% → 10%
A partial measure 16% → 12%
A more aggressive alternative 10% → 5%
No change 4% → 2%

The reasoning behind them

Every decision carries its rationale, in the HCP's own words. Which message pulled through, and which barrier is real.

68-85%

of those choosing the recommended option

cite the guideline, or a specific patient factor.

58-78%

of those choosing an alternative

cite familiarity, or efficacy alone.

The reasons captured

Following the guideline
Efficacy
Patient barriers and tolerability
Risk of interactions
Familiarity with the option
Cost and patient access

One signal, not the whole picture

The conversation itself

HCPs question the patient in free text. The goals are scored from what they ask, not from what they order.

Treatment history and prior response 82%

Chief complaint 80%

Symptom and risk screen 80%

Communication skills 62%

The patient's life and barriers 57%

72% Overall cohort performance

Assessed across 11 communication dimensions and 5 competency domains, with no manual grading. Cohort averages shown; individual reports also available.

Captured in every case

Decisions

Every diagnosis, prescription, dose, hold and referral, scored against your objectives.

Guideline implementation gaps
Treatment and prescribing patterns
Safety and risk behavior

Conversations

The free-text interview, scored across 11 communication dimensions.

Disease and risk awareness
Unmet need, in their own words
5 competency domains

Content exposure

Which reference and which of your materials they opened, and what it changed.

The decision point that triggered it
Time on the page, not just the click
Whether the decision was then revised
What was surfaced and skipped

Engagement

Who took part, through which channel, and how far they got.

Reach and completion
Channel performance
Message pull-through

Feedback lands where the decision is made.

Decide under uncertainty.

See the evidence.

Decide again.

The decision

A diagnosis, a dose, a hold, a referral. Under real uncertainty.

The evidence

The guideline arrives at that moment. Two or three lines, with a link.

The revision

They change course, and say why. Both are captured.

The proof

Whether it holds at the next decision, across the cohort.

Where this data sits

The signal between attention and prescribing.

Engagement proves you reached them. Prescribing data proves the outcome, months later. The decision sits between the two, and it is the earliest reliable read.

Attention