How it works
Why trust an act or a claim from HealthOS Semantics? You need not — you can verify it. This page shows the path from document to claim line, and what is verifiable at each step of it.
The document’s path through the pipeline
|
|
Humans take part in one place — the decision panels; the rest the pipeline records automatically, with a version, an author and a digest at every step.
Input: documents and visits
Five document intake forms — one pipeline; the intake form changes neither the binding statuses nor the lineage of the result.
- Single upload via the web workspace: PDF, DOCX or a scan; scans go through recognition, and recognition quality is a measured input metric.
- Batch upload: an archive of documents for a period — the typical billing-office mode when preparing a registry.
- Event-driven integration with the clinic’s information system: a document is signed — the pipeline receives it immediately.
- Agent channel: documents and binding requests from documentation systems over the standard profile.
- Retrospective archive migration: one-off processing of historical documents for structuring and registry completeness.
A separate input class is the physician visit itself. Visit recordings take the common pipeline path — recognition, term extraction, binding:
| Visit form | How the document enters the pipeline |
|---|---|
| In-office visit | ambient recording → speaker separation → draft note |
| Telemedicine consultation | channel recording; speakers are already separated by channel |
| Dictation after the visit | the physician dictates a summary; recognition → pipeline |
| Home and field visits | mobile recording with deferred transfer into the protected contour |
| Tumor boards, rounds | multi-party discussion minutes |
One invariant holds across all forms: patient data and audio never leave the perimeter of the medical organization or the HealthOS cloud.
The chain of evidence
|
A document or visit recording is turned into a claim line step by step:
|
|
Every link carries a version, an author and a cryptographic digest; the audit log is immutable and the evidence is available on request. Checking a claim line means opening it, in one click, into its full chain.
The decision core: rules and people
|
The machine works at the pipeline input and does one job — deciphering the sources, with varying difficulty:
|
|
Live visit speech with speaker separation is hard: spontaneous speech, professional shorthand, overlapping remarks, room noise; at a tumour board speakers are many and roles shift. Telehealth is simpler — participants are already separated by channel.
Assigning the code and the tariff is not delegated to the machine. The decision core is deterministic rules and people: behind a conclusion stands a rule with a version, so the same document yields the same result, while anything disputed is blocked and goes to a human for authorization. The rules are executed by a computational pipeline: they are not interpreted on the fly but run as a program — which is where the repeatability of the result comes from. No trainable models sit in the decision loop, and client data is not used to train third-party models.
The hardest task in the system is solved not by an algorithm but by architecture: not “guess correctly” but “reliably recognise that there is no certainty”.
Binding statuses
Binding is two-staged: exact match against a descriptor first, ranked semantic candidates when that fails. The result always carries an explicit status:
| Status | Meaning | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Exact match | matches a descriptor — the binding is reliable | automation; needs no attention |
| Semantic candidate | ranked candidates with similarity scores | a human — authorizes the choice between candidates |
| Ambiguous | several equally strong candidates | a human |
| No match | the term is not in the vocabulary | a human; the term becomes a vocabulary-extension candidate |
| Stale index | the search index lags the vocabulary | binding is blocked until reindexing |
Disputed statuses are never silently swallowed: they queue for human authorization. Queue growth is a signal to improve vocabulary coverage, not to rush operators.
The dual-document contract
Medical and economic documents are derived from the same set of authorized terms. One visit event produces the clinical note — into the clinic’s information system — and the personified service record — into the accounting system, so a mismatch between “what the note says” and “what was billed” is impossible by construction rather than detected by inspection. The contract covers what passed through the pipeline: a service entered into the accounting system by hand, bypassing it, is not protected by the contract — such lines are worked on the act panel.
Outputs
- A FHIR bundle: Encounter, Condition, Observation, Procedure, Claim — structured resources instead of text;
- the act and the registry for the payer — every line with its lineage.
Want to see the chain on your own document?
10-minute demo