Implementation checklist
Senior housing & care software integration: the implementation checklist
Integrate senior housing & care software systems in four stages, in this order. First, define every contested number in writing and confirm interface entitlement with each incumbent vendor. Second, connect each source system read-only, map every field to one of six canonical entities — Resident, Care Plan, Ledger, Shift, Property/Unit, Entity — and attach lineage at ingest. Third, reconcile period totals to the general ledger, worked hours to payroll, and occupancy to the unit inventory, routing exceptions to named owners and freezing a dated baseline. Fourth, declare the authority rule per attribute so conflicts resolve by rule rather than by whoever built the spreadsheet. Each stage below has an accountable owner and an evidence test; a stage is not complete because the data moved, it is complete when the evidence exists.
- Stages
- Definitions · Read-only connection · Reconciliation · Authority
- Direction
- Read-only by default; scoped writes only on written authorisation
- Canonical entities
- Resident · Care Plan · Ledger · Shift · Property/Unit · Entity
- Stage gate
- Evidence, not data movement, closes a stage
Evidence posture. Connector coverage below is stated at its Product Record state — the third-party source-system connector framework is BUILT as a framework and exercised against vendor-documented interfaces and synthetic fixtures. No third-party integration runs in an operator production environment. Read every connector row as scope, not as a deployment. Last reviewed August 30, 2026.
Architecture
What the checklist is building
Sources stay where they are. Governance happens above them. Every stage below moves the organisation along this one direction of travel.
Layer 1 — Source systems (unchanged)
Layer 2 — Immutable landing and lineage
Raw payloads retained as received, each field tagged with source system, source identifier, interface and extraction timestamp.
Layer 3 — Canonical entities
Layer 4 — operator-controlled operating record
Accepted value, rejected value, basis of acceptance and restatement history. When systems disagree, the operator governs.
Layer 5 — Consumers
Board and lender reporting, operating reviews, BI tools, and AI workflows that read the governed record rather than the raw sources. Govern the truth before you automate the decision.
Stage 1
Stage 1 — Definitions and entitlement
Nothing is connected until the numbers are defined and interface use is confirmed. Integration work started before this stage is the most common source of a rebuild.
| Checklist item | Accountable owner | Evidence that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| One written definition per contested metric (occupancy, census, level of care, worked hours, agency hours, NOI) | Finance lead, countersigned by operations | Definition set with numerator, denominator, inclusion rule and named owner per metric |
| Named authoritative system per canonical attribute | Operator executive sponsor | Authority register: attribute, authoritative system, fallback rule |
| Inventory of every report the board currently receives and the system each figure comes from | Finance lead | Report-to-source map, including spreadsheets acting as de facto records |
| Interface entitlement confirmed with each incumbent vendor and with counsel | IT lead and counsel | Written confirmation of permitted interface use per vendor agreement |
| Data-handling scope agreed: what is read, what is excluded, retention and deletion expectations | Compliance lead | Scope statement plus executed agreements, including a BAA where PHI is in scope |
Stage 2
Stage 2 — Read-only connection and mapping
Read the systems as they are. Leave each one as the operator’s own system of record, and attach lineage at the moment of ingest rather than reconstructing it later.
| Checklist item | Accountable owner | Evidence that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| Read-only credentials or scheduled extracts issued per source system | IT lead | Credential register showing scope, direction and expiry |
| No write path configured back into any source system | IT lead | Interface configuration review confirming read-only posture |
| Every source field mapped to one canonical entity and attribute | Data governance owner | Field-level mapping document, unmapped fields listed rather than dropped silently |
| Lineage metadata attached at ingest: source system, source identifier, interface, extraction timestamp | Data governance owner | Sample record traced from published figure back to source payload |
| Resident identity resolution rule agreed and deterministic | Clinical lead and finance lead jointly | Match rule plus an exception queue with a named owner; no silent merges |
Stage 3
Stage 3 — Reconciliation
Reconciliation is where integration either earns trust or quietly loses it. Disagreement is made visible, not averaged away.
| Checklist item | Accountable owner | Evidence that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| Period totals tie to the general ledger within a written tolerance | Controller | GL tie report with tolerance stated and open items listed |
| Payroll worked and paid hours tie to the same closed period as the GL | Payroll owner | Hours reconciliation including accrual timing differences |
| Occupancy reconciled against unit inventory and the billed roster | Operations lead | Physical, licensed and available unit counts held as distinct fields |
| Exceptions routed to named owners, not suppressed | Data governance owner | Exception log with owner, age and disposition |
| Dated baseline frozen before any derived metric is published | Controller | Frozen period baseline, restatements visible as restatements |
Sequence
The same sequence, stated as phases
The checklist above is the detail. This is the shape a steering committee can hold in mind, with the exit test that closes each phase.
1.Phase 1 — Definitions
Goal. Settle what each number means before anything is connected.
- Write one definition per contested metric: occupancy, census, level of care, worked hours, agency hours, NOI.
- Name an accountable owner for each definition.
- Record which system the operator expects to be authoritative for each field.
- Capture the questions the board asks and the report each answer currently comes from.
Exit test. A written definition set with named owners, signed off by the operator — not by the vendor.
2.Phase 2 — Read-only connection
Goal. Read the source systems without touching them.
- Stand up read-only credentials or scoped extracts per source system.
- Map each source field to a canonical entity and attribute.
- Land raw source payloads immutably, with lineage metadata attached at ingest.
- Leave every source system as the operator’s own system of record for now.
Exit test. Source data lands with full lineage and no write path back into any source system.
3.Phase 3 — Reconciliation
Goal. Make disagreement visible instead of averaging it away.
- Reconcile period totals to the general ledger and to payroll worked hours within a written tolerance.
- Reconcile occupancy against the unit inventory and the billed roster.
- Route every unmatched or out-of-tolerance item to a named owner as an exception.
- Freeze a dated baseline before any derived metric is published.
Exit test. A reconciliation report the operator would hand to an auditor, with open exceptions listed rather than suppressed.
4.Phase 4 — Authority
Goal. Declare who governs each field when systems disagree.
- Set the authority rule per canonical attribute.
- Record the accepted value, the rejected value and the basis of acceptance.
- Publish the governed views the board and lenders read.
- Retain restatement history so a corrected number never silently replaces the number a decision was made on.
Exit test. One Operator-Controlled Operating Record the operator controls, with conflicts resolved by rule and by name.
5.Phase 5 — Coexistence or replacement, by choice
Goal. Decide the future of each source system on the operator’s timetable.
- Keep the incumbent system and continue reading one direction only, or
- Adopt the SeniorCRE clinical record — its own EHR and eMAR — as the clinical system of record,
- Maintain exactly one authoritative MAR at all times during any transition.
- Re-run reconciliation across the change so history stays comparable.
Exit test. A documented decision per system. Govern first; replace only by choice.
Source to destination
Which combinations are read together, and what must reconcile first
Each row is a source-to-destination flow: the systems read, the interface class, the join key, and the reconciliation that has to pass before a blended figure is published.
Connector scope state: FRAMEWORK
| System combination | Read on | Join key | Must reconcile first |
|---|---|---|---|
| EHR / eMAR + accounting or ERP general ledger | Vendor API, HL7 v2, FHIR R4 · GL read | Resident identity key · Property/entity key · Closed period | Clinical census against billed census; posted revenue against the billing sub-ledger |
| EHR / eMAR + payroll and time | Vendor API or extract · payroll register, SFTP | Property/entity key · Shift date · Closed period | Documented care minutes against worked hours; agency hours cause-coded to the open shift |
| CRM + property management unit inventory | Vendor API · scheduled extract | Prospect identity key · Unit key | Move-in pipeline against physical, licensed and available unit counts held as distinct fields |
| Property management + general ledger | Vendor API · dimension-aware GL read | Property/entity key · Closed period | Billed rent roll against posted revenue within a written tolerance |
| Payroll and time + general ledger | Scheduled export, SFTP · GL read | Entity key · Pay period mapped to accounting period | Payroll cost against GL labor expense, including accrual timing differences |
| Governed record + BI (Power BI®, Tableau®) | Outbound governed dataset | Record version identifier | Nothing is exposed to BI before the period baseline is frozen; BI reads, and writes nothing back |
| Multi-entity portfolio across states | Per-instance reads, one governed record | Property → operating entity, per effective date | State-specific definitions held as attributes of one field, never as competing fields |
Every row is read one direction by default. A combination being in scope is not a claim that it runs in an operator production environment today.
Connector matrix
Named source systems in scope
Coverage is stated as scope at the connector framework’s maturity state. Vendor names are used nominatively.
Connector scope state: FRAMEWORK
| Source system | Category | Interface class | Feeds |
|---|---|---|---|
| PointClickCare® | EHR / clinical | Vendor API, HL7 v2, FHIR R4 resources | Resident, Care Plan |
| MatrixCare® | EHR / clinical | Vendor API, HL7 v2, flat-file extract | Resident, Care Plan |
| Med e-care | EHR / clinical | Vendor API, flat-file extract | Resident, Care Plan |
| Yardi® Voyager | Property / billing | Vendor API, scheduled extract | Property/Unit, Ledger |
| RealPage® | Property / billing | Vendor API, scheduled extract | Property/Unit, Ledger |
| Sage Intacct® | Accounting / GL | Vendor API, dimension-aware GL read | Ledger, Entity |
| Microsoft® Dynamics 365 | ERP / GL | Vendor API, OData | Ledger, Entity |
| Sherpa CRM | CRM / sales | Vendor API | Resident (prospect), Property/Unit |
| Enquire Solutions | CRM / sales | Vendor API | Resident (prospect), Property/Unit |
| WelcomeHome Software | CRM / sales | Vendor API | Resident (prospect), Property/Unit |
| Power BI® | Analytics / BI | Outbound governed dataset | Reads the record; writes nothing |
| Tableau® | Analytics / BI | Outbound governed dataset | Reads the record; writes nothing |
| DocuSign®, Adobe Sign | Documents / e-signature | Vendor API, event webhook | Resident, Entity |
| Payroll and time systems | Workforce | Scheduled export, SFTP, vendor API where published | Shift, Ledger |
Ownership of the record
Who owns the Operator-Controlled Operating Record when the project is done
The operator does. Each canonical entity has one authority rule and one reconciliation test, and both are the operator’s to set.
| Canonical entity | Typical source fields | Authority rule | Reconciliation test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resident | EHR resident master, CRM prospect record, billing account, unit roster | Clinical system of record for clinical identity; operator-declared identity key for the governed record | Deterministic match on name, date of birth and admission date; unmatched records surface as an exception, never a silent merge |
| Care Plan | EHR assessments, service plans, MAR, acuity scoring | One authoritative MAR. The clinical system of record governs clinical content | Acuity level and service minutes reconciled to the billed level of care; variance is reported, not resolved by preference |
| Ledger | General ledger, AR sub-ledger, billing system, payroll register, agency invoices | General ledger is authoritative for posted amounts; source systems are authoritative for pre-posting activity | Period totals tie to the GL within a written tolerance before any derived metric is published |
| Shift | Scheduling system, time and attendance, payroll worked hours, agency invoice detail | Payroll worked hours are authoritative for hours paid; the schedule is authoritative for intent | Scheduled, worked and paid hours reconciled to the same period; agency hours cause-coded |
| Property/Unit | Property management system unit table, occupancy roster, CRM move-in pipeline | Property management system is authoritative for the unit inventory | Physical, licensed and available unit counts held as distinct fields so census is never computed from an ambiguous denominator |
| Entity | Chart of accounts, legal entity register, ownership and management agreements | Operator-declared entity structure | Every property maps to exactly one operating entity per effective date, with history retained |
Access is not authority. A vendor that can read the data has access; the operator who decides which value the business accepts has authority. Integration delivers the first. Only a governed record delivers the second — see the operating record and the Operator Authority Chain.
Lineage
What every closed stage has to be able to prove
Lineage is the evidence that the checklist was actually followed, expressed as four questions any auditor or board member can ask of a single number.
DATA
Where did this value come from?
Every field carries its source system, source identifier, extraction timestamp and interface used. A value with no traceable origin is not admitted to the record.
TRUTH
Which value does the operator accept?
When two systems disagree, both values are retained, the conflict is raised, and the governed record shows the accepted value plus the rule or the named person that accepted it.
DECISION
What was decided on this number?
Decisions reference the record version they were made against, so a later restatement does not quietly rewrite the basis of a past decision.
EXECUTION
What happened next, and who confirmed it?
Actions taken from the record are logged with the confirming human. Nothing writes back into a source system without an explicit, scoped, operator-authorised write.
Frequently asked questions
How do I integrate senior housing & care software systems?
In four stages, in order. Define every contested number and confirm interface entitlement; connect each source system read-only and map every field to a canonical entity with lineage attached at ingest; reconcile period totals to the general ledger, worked hours to payroll and occupancy to the unit inventory, routing exceptions to named owners; then declare the authority rule per attribute so conflicts resolve by rule. A stage closes on evidence — a reconciliation report, an authority register, a traceable field — not on the fact that data moved.
What is the first thing to do in an integration project?
Write the definitions. Most integration projects that have to be redone were technically successful and semantically unspecified: the systems were connected before the organisation had agreed what occupancy, level of care or worked hours meant. Definitions are an operator deliverable, signed off by the operator rather than by a vendor.
Who should own the integration internally?
An executive sponsor owns authority decisions, the controller owns the ledger and payroll ties, operations owns occupancy and the unit inventory, the clinical lead owns clinical identity and content, IT owns credentials and interface configuration, and compliance and counsel own scope, retention and agreements. Every checklist row on this page names its owner because unowned reconciliation items are the ones that stay open.
Do we have to switch systems to complete this checklist?
No. The default posture is read one direction only: source systems are left untouched and remain the operator’s systems of record. Clinical scope is a configuration choice — SeniorCRE has built clinical record surfaces; medication administration and eMAR remain roadmap — not built. Any future clinical system-of-record function must clear its own Production-Entry Gates and receive operator acceptance. Govern first; replace only by choice.
How long does an integration take?
No duration is published here. SeniorCRE has no operator production deployment, so any schedule stated would be an estimate presented as evidence. Sequence is what this page commits to: definitions before connection, reconciliation before publication, authority before automation.
What evidence should we expect at each stage?
A written definition set with owners; a credential register showing read-only scope; a field-level mapping with unmapped fields listed; a single record traced from a published figure back to its source payload; a general-ledger tie with the tolerance stated and open items listed; an exception log with owners and ages; a frozen dated baseline; and an authority register retaining accepted and rejected values with the basis of acceptance.
Evidence behind the evaluation
These pages carry the governance and clinical evidence a shortlist cannot: source authority rules, escalation controls, data limits, and survey-ready evidence.
- senior housing & care data governance for multi-state portfolios
How differing state definitions and survey regimes are governed in one record.
- human review and escalation controls for clinical AI
Mandatory human review, escalation paths, and what the system may never do.
- clinical AI data sources and limitations
What the signals are computed from, and where the evidence stops.
- how to evaluate senior housing & care software for 10+ locations
Six-criteria, vendor-neutral evaluation frame for multi-state portfolios.
Continue in this cluster
Data integration for senior housing & care
The pillar: canonical entities, connector coverage, lineage and the phased sequence every page here shares.
Combining PointClickCare® with accounting and payroll data
How clinical census and acuity from an EHR reconcile against the general ledger and worked payroll hours in one governed record.
Connecting EHR, CRM, payroll and general-ledger data
The four-system join: which system is authoritative for which field, and how conflicts are resolved rather than averaged.
Integration with your EHR retained — replacement optional
Read-one-direction coexistence: govern the operating record above the systems you already run, and replace only by choice.
Acquisition-day integration
What has to be connected, reconciled and owned before the first close-day board number is defensible.
Multi-state data governance
One authoritative source per field across states that define census, acuity, staffing and incidents differently — without forking the record.
Data integration platform buyer’s guide
Nine evaluation criteria instead of connector counts, the categories of approach and where each one structurally stops.
Operator-controlled operating record and integration architecture
Six entities with declared grain and identity rules inside a five-layer read-only architecture, from landing and lineage to governed consumers.
- Connector inventory: Integration ecosystem · Integration posture
- Canonical model: One Operator-Controlled Operating Record · The operating record · What is a senior housing & care operating infrastructure?
- Comparisons: SeniorCRE vs PointClickCare® · SeniorCRE vs Yardi® · Hosting versus governing
Bring your own systems to the conversation
The useful version of this discussion is your actual stack, your actual contested numbers, and the reconciliation you cannot currently produce on demand.
PointClickCare® is a registered trademark of PointClickCare Technologies. MatrixCare® is a registered trademark of ResMed. Yardi® is a registered trademark of Yardi Systems, Inc. DocuSign® is a registered trademark of DocuSign, Inc. Salesforce® and Tableau® are registered trademarks of Salesforce, Inc. Power BI® and Microsoft® are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. QuickBooks® is a registered trademark of Intuit Inc. ADP® is a registered trademark of ADP, Inc. Oracle® is a registered trademark of Oracle Corporation. All other product names, logos, and brands are property of their respective owners. SeniorCRE is an independent platform and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of the aforementioned companies. Comparisons are based on publicly available information and may not reflect all product capabilities.