How does SeniorCRE turn care conference goals into measurable follow-through?
Expected outcome
Goal-owner and deadline evidence
Modeled from workflow design and industry benchmarks. No customer communities measured yet — figures are targets, not validated results. See Industry Findings for methodology.
The problem
Care conferences happen, goals get set, and then the notes go into a folder. Nothing changes until the next conference.
How the platform runs it
Conferences schedule automatically based on regulatory cadence and care-plan triggers. The agenda pulls in recent clinical events. During the conference, goals are set with specific owners, deadlines, and measurable outcomes — "increase ambulation" becomes "walk 200 feet twice daily by March 30." After the conference, goals are tracked in real time; if PT has not documented progress in five days, the system flags it. Conference summaries are shared with the family through the portal automatically.
On the shift
A 30-day care conference for a new admission runs Thursday at 2 p.m. The interdisciplinary team — DON, social worker, dietary, therapy, and the family on video — reviews the resident’s care plan in the meeting. Decisions made during the conference become tasks assigned to named owners with due dates: dietary will trial a soft mechanical diet starting Friday; therapy will reassess balance in two weeks; the social worker will follow up with the daughter on advance directive paperwork. The action items appear in each owner’s task list the moment the conference ends.
What the outcome looks like
Evidence focus: care-conference goals, owners, deadlines, and follow-through status are visible for operator review. No measured satisfaction or survey outcome is claimed here.
What goes wrong without it
On a typical stack, the care conference produces handwritten notes in a binder. The decisions are real, but nobody owns the follow-through. Two weeks later, the dietary trial has not started because nobody told dietary. The therapy reassessment slipped. The family is wondering why nothing has changed. At the 90-day conference, the team re-discusses the same items, and the family — reasonably — escalates to corporate.
Where this connects in the platform
Every clinical workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Clinical and quality references
Clinical workflows on this page run against the CMS RAI/MDS manual, the Quality Measure technical specifications, and the recognized clinical practice guidelines published by AGS, IDSA, and the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society.
- Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual
CMS
The binding rulebook for MDS assessment timing, item coding, and look-back windows that drive both quality measures and PDPM scoring.
- MDS 3.0 Quality Measures User's Manual
CMS
Technical specifications for the long- and short-stay quality measures reported on Care Compare.
- Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults
American Geriatrics Society
Reference standard for psychotropic stewardship and high-risk medication review in older adults.
- CDC / NHSN Long-Term Care Facility Component
CDC
Definitions and surveillance protocols for UTI, respiratory, and multidrug-resistant organism tracking used in infection control.