Intake
Identity, episode, consent, image and user concern arrive together.
For clinicians and care teams
Turn an image stream into a prioritised, reviewable clinical workflow.
Healing Process brings original photographs, quality information, patient-reported change, secure messages and review outcomes into one auditable view—without presenting the algorithm as the clinician.
Human decision pointThe system may support prioritisation; the authorised reviewer determines clinical action.
Clinical boundary: image alignment and comparison may highlight apparent visual change, but they do not diagnose infection, healing, deterioration or any condition. Originals stay available, confidence and limitations are shown, and a suitably qualified person makes clinical decisions.
A closed-loop workflow
From submission to documented outcome
Quality
Check original, capture quality, alignment and limitations.
Prioritise
Use protocol, reported symptoms and context—not a visual score alone.
Review
Assess history and communicate within the defined service model.
Act
Advise, arrange assessment, escalate or continue planned review.
Close
Record decision, rationale, owner, safety-netting and next date.
The clinical dashboard
Visibility without information overload
The most important queue information should be visible before opening the full record.
Review screen requirements
What must remain visible
| Area | Minimum information | Safety purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Person and episode | Verified identifiers, pathway, care location, named service and review hours. | Avoid wrong-person, wrong-pathway and unmonitored assumptions. |
| Source record | Baseline original, follow-up original, date/time, device/capture data and user notes. | Preserve provenance and permit independent review. |
| Derived comparison | Method/version, alignment status, quality warnings, confidence and a clear “derived image” label. | Prevent manipulated imagery being mistaken for an original. |
| Clinical context | Relevant history supplied by the integrated record or local workflow; do not infer it from pixels. | Avoid image-only decisions. |
| Action | Reviewer identity, decision, rationale, advice, escalation, appointment and next review. | Provide a closed, auditable loop. |
Communication example
Messages should be clinically meaningful, bounded and actionable
Good practice
- Acknowledge the specific concern rather than sending a generic greeting.
- Ask only questions needed to decide the next safe action.
- State whether the person needs emergency, urgent, same-day, routine or planned review using the provider’s protocol.
- Book or identify the owner of the next action rather than shifting responsibility back ambiguously.
- Give safety-netting and a route if the message is not answered.
- Record clinically significant communication in the authoritative patient record according to local policy.
Messaging is not a substitute
Do not continue an asynchronous conversation where direct assessment, telephone triage or emergency escalation is needed.
Operating controls
Before a live queue accepts patient information
Ownership
Named clinical safety officer, service owner, data controller roles and operational rota.
Protocols
Defined inclusion, exclusion, urgency, escalation, downtime and failed-contact rules.
Competence
Role-based access, training, supervision, calibration and competency records.
Assurance
Clinical safety case, hazard log, DPIA, security testing, accessibility testing and post-market monitoring as applicable.
Design the service around safe ownership
Use the provider page and deployment checklist to define the pathway, team, review windows, integration and governance before a live pilot.