Senior Living Data Integration: EHR, CRM, Payroll & GL
Integrating senior housing & care systems takes five steps in a fixed order: settle the definition of every contested number, connect each source system read-only with lineage attached at ingest, map every source field to one of six canonical entities — Resident, Care Plan, Ledger, Shift, Property/Unit, Entity — reconcile period totals to the general ledger and to payroll worked hours within a written tolerance, and then declare which system holds authority for each field when they disagree. Integration alone gets data into one place; it does not settle which number is true. That last step is…
On this page
The architecture is deliberately boring at the edges and strict in the middle. Sources stay as they are. Governance happens above them.
Mapping is not the hard part. Authority is. Each row below states the reconciliation test that has to pass before anything derived from that entity is published. See one operational data model for the entity definitions themselves.
Coverage is stated as scope, not as deployment. The full inventory, including categories not listed here, is on the integration ecosystem page.
Each phase has an exit test an operator can apply without taking a vendor’s word for it. Skipping Phase 1 is the single most common reason integration projects produce dashboards nobody trusts.
DATA → TRUTH → DECISION → EXECUTION. Lineage is what makes each arrow auditable. Read the authority chain for the full argument.
Each page below answers one question end to end, in isolation.
Key points
- It is the layer that reads the systems an operator already runs — EHR and eMAR, CRM, payroll and time, accounting or ERP, and property management — normalises each source field into a shared set of canonical entities, and reconciles the results so a single governed figure can be published. The distinction that matters is between moving data and governing it: a platform that only consolidates leav…
- Define the contested metrics and name an owner for each; obtain read-only credentials or scheduled extracts from each source system; land raw payloads immutably with source system, source identifier, interface and timestamp attached; map every field to a canonical entity; reconcile period totals against the general ledger and payroll worked hours within a written tolerance; route exceptions to na…
- The connector framework is written against PointClickCare®, MatrixCare®, Med e-care, Yardi® Voyager, RealPage®, Sage Intacct®, Microsoft® Dynamics 365, Sherpa CRM, Enquire Solutions, WelcomeHome Software, Power BI®, Tableau®, DocuSign® and Adobe Sign, plus payroll and time systems via scheduled export, SFTP or published vendor API. That coverage is scope at a FRAMEWORK maturity state. No third-pa…
- No. Clinical scope is a configuration choice. SeniorCRE includes its own EHR and eMAR and can serve as the clinical system of record, or it can run alongside an incumbent clinical system reading one direction only, with exactly one authoritative MAR at all times. Govern first; replace only by choice.
- Every admitted field carries its source system, source identifier, extraction timestamp and the interface it arrived on. When two systems disagree, both values are retained and the governed record shows the accepted value alongside the rule or named person that accepted it. Decisions reference the record version they were made against, so a later restatement never silently rewrites the basis of a…
- Not by default. The default posture is read-one-direction: source systems are left untouched and remain the operator’s systems of record until the operator decides otherwise. Any write path is explicit, scoped to named fields, and authorised by the operator.
https://seniorcre.com/senior-living-data-integration