Selected hospital experience · China
Hospital experience behind our workflow approach.
Our hospital project experience covers document digitalization and intelligence, medical record quality control, and coding. Selected references include:
01 · Chongqing
The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University
重庆医科大学附属第一医院
Discuss this reference02 · Xi’an
Xijing Hospital
西京医院
Discuss this reference03 · Mianyang
Mianyang Central Hospital
绵阳市中心医院
Discuss this referenceThree connected workstreams
The following overview describes our standard delivery approach across these project areas. Exact system integrations and acceptance criteria are defined for each hospital.
Document digitalization & intelligence
Make clinical documents searchable and usable across review workflows.
Workflow
Organize document inputs, extract key fields and retain links to the original page and passage.
Standard deliverable
Structured document records with source references for review and handoff.
Medical record quality control
Help reviewers identify incomplete or inconsistent documentation.
Workflow
Apply agreed completeness and consistency checks, route exceptions to the responsible reviewer, and record corrections.
Standard deliverable
A review queue linking each issue to the record, review decision and resolution status.
Coding support
Connect coding review to the underlying clinical documentation.
Workflow
Surface candidate concepts, check documentation support, and present the relevant source text for qualified review.
Standard deliverable
Reviewable coding suggestions and exception records with a human decision trail.
These references relate to our team's hospital delivery experience in China. The synthetic coding QA example below is a separate demonstration, not a claim that these hospitals use that product.
Try the interactive review demoRepresentative workflow case
Turning long clinical documents into reviewable coding evidence.
This case uses synthetic content to show how an RCM audit or healthtech team can evaluate evidence-linked review without sharing patient information.
The challenge
Reviewers need the reason, not only the answer.
Important diagnoses, documentation gaps, and coding questions are often distributed across many pages. A suggestion without visible source evidence simply moves work downstream: the reviewer still has to search the chart.
The evaluation question was therefore narrow: can a workflow surface a candidate finding, link it to the exact page and passage, and route uncertainty to a qualified reviewer?
The controlled workflow
01
Normalize
Split pages, preserve coordinates, and identify document sections.
02
Analyze
Apply extraction, terminology mapping, and explicit documentation rules.
03
Link evidence
Attach every material finding to its supporting or conflicting passage.
04
Review
Let a qualified user approve, correct, or send the item to an exception queue.
Evaluation output
A decision-ready result, including failure cases.
The deliverable is not a claim of autonomous coding. It is a bounded review workflow with evidence, confidence, exceptions, reviewer actions, and a written production recommendation.
Field-level results and evidence locations
Coverage, exceptions, and disagreement examples
Reviewer feedback and workflow fit
Deployment, retention, and integration considerations
Important scope note
The example is synthetic and representative. It does not identify a customer, disclose patient information, or assert measured production performance. Any real pilot requires agreed acceptance criteria and data controls.