How does the platform speed physician order turnaround and replace fax workflows?
Expected outcome
Order and message lineage
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
The physician is off-site. The nurse faxes an order. The pharmacy calls back. Three hours later, the order is entered. The resident waited.
How the platform runs it
Physicians access their residents through a secure portal. Orders are entered, reviewed, and signed electronically. Secure messaging replaces phone tag. Telehealth is built in for off-site consultations. When a nurse requests an order, the physician receives the request alongside relevant clinical context — vitals, recent events, current medications.
On the shift
The physician opens her tablet during rounds. New orders flow into the eMAR and care plan without transcription; she signs verbal orders inside the 24-hour window because the system reminds her. The nurse’s SBAR for Mr. R. — change in mental status overnight — is in her inbox with the trended vitals attached; her response order is timestamped and audit-traceable. Lab and imaging results route to her with a one-tap acknowledgment.
What the outcome looks like
Evidence focus: order requests, signatures, secure messages, and turnaround timestamps are preserved for operator review. No turnaround or satisfaction outcome is claimed here.
What goes wrong without it
Without integrated physician workflow, verbal orders are written on paper, transcribed by the nurse, and signed when the physician next visits — which may be weeks. SBAR communication is by fax or text, neither of which is audit-defensible. The lab result that should have triggered a medication change sits in the printer tray for two days. Survey citations for unsigned orders follow with predictable frequency.
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.