Clinical services · Medication therapy management

A review nobody can produce in fields is a review nobody pays for

Whoever sponsors a medication review will ask how many medications were reviewed, what changed, how long it took and what the plan says. A narrative answers none of those. Attergo captures the review as fields and sends it out in the shape the programme reads.

Attergo: the prior authorization case list, showing cases by stage with the payer and the days remaining on each.
The problem

The clinical record and the payable record were never the same document

A pharmacist writes a narrative, because that is what clinical training produces and it is the right artefact for the patient. The programme wants discrete facts. The review that produced an excellent narrative and no structured record is the one that goes unpaid, and nobody did anything wrong. The two artefacts were simply never made into one.

What the platform does

The mechanism behind it.

The template asks for what the programme needs

The documentation template on the catalogue entry names the fields, and they are captured during the review: medications reviewed, interventions made, minutes spent, the plan.

Exported as a structured care plan

The plan goes out as a structured clinical document and the activity as a file in the layout the programme expects. Both are built integrations rather than a report somebody reads off and retypes.

Time is entered, not reconstructed

Minutes are a number recorded at the visit. A duration assembled afterwards from memory is the easiest thing for a reviewer to take apart, and the one thing nobody can put back together.

Signed, timed, and corrected in the open

The attesting practitioner and the time sit on the encounter, and a later correction keeps the original alongside the reason for it rather than replacing it.

Ask what a service costs you to deliver.

A read-only connection and credentials you can revoke. We come back with what the last month of clinical work produced, using your own numbers.