Multi-Specialty Group Automation
The work is finding which layers can be shared and which have to stay specialty-specific, then automating the shared layer properly.
What breaks today
Central services fit nobody
A single central registration or authorization process gets configured for the largest specialty and works poorly for the rest.
Internal referrals leak
Patients referred between specialties inside the group get lost in the same queue as external referrals.
Reporting cannot be compared
Each service line measures access, throughput, and denials slightly differently, which makes portfolio decisions guesswork.
One EHR, eight configurations
The same system has been configured eight times by eight teams, and the divergence compounds every year.
What we build
Scoped during the assessment, then delivered in one to three week increments against your real systems.
Layered standardization
A shared automation core with specialty-specific rule sets on top, so common workflows converge without forcing false uniformity.
Internal referral fast path
Intra-group referrals routed on a separate path with capacity awareness, so a warm handoff stays warm.
Comparable service line reporting
One definition of access, throughput, denial rate, and cost to collect applied identically across specialties.
Configuration governance
An inventory of EHR configuration divergence with a remediation plan and an owner for each decision.
Central authorization with specialty rules
One authorization team supported by per-specialty payer rules rather than institutional memory.
What changes
Ranges reflect what comparable engagements have produced. Your baseline is measured during the assessment before anyone commits to a number.
- Central services that work acceptably for every specialty rather than well for one
- Internal referral conversion measured and improved
- Service line performance genuinely comparable at the portfolio level
- Configuration divergence documented and actively reduced
Systems this touches
Integration channel is chosen on verified capability in your environment, not on what is easiest to document.
- Epic
- Oracle Health (Cerner)
- athenahealth
- NextGen
- eClinicalWorks
- HL7 v2
- FHIR R4
Not sure this is the right workflow to start with? The $24,997 assessment exists to answer exactly that, and it frequently points somewhere other than where leadership expected.
Common Questions
Where should a group start if everything needs work?
Almost always with the assessment, because in multi-specialty groups the highest-value target is rarely the one leadership expects. Mapping actual PHI and work flow across service lines usually reveals that one shared bottleneck is causing symptoms in four places.
Talk it through with an engineer.
Tell us what this workflow costs you today and we will tell you honestly whether automating it is worth the engagement.
Start with a conversation, not a proposal.
A 45-minute call with a senior engineer. We will tell you honestly whether automation is the right answer for the workflow you have in mind.