AI Health Index
Clinical Reference & Evidence
E

Eolas Medical

Eolas Medical brings hospital policies, clinical guidelines and local knowledge into a shared reference platform. Ask Eolas retrieves relevant passages and generates an answer with links to the institution's source material. Clinical owners control content approval, review dates and access, while analytics reveal common questions and gaps in available guidance.

The platform serves healthcare professionals through web and mobile access, with offline access to reference content. It can read policies from systems such as SharePoint and PolicyStat, and a named hospital deployment opens Eolas from Epic. The service excludes patient information. Its strongest controlled evidence concerns simulated antimicrobial prescribing, while broader deployments cover nursing, emergency medicine and other departments.

AI Health Index verifiedOctober 14, 2026
Compare Eolas Medical with other vendors
Founded
—
Headquarters
London, UK
Categories
clinical-reference-and-evidence
Indexed Products
Ask Eolas, Knowledge Hub, Institutional knowledge management
Buyer Segments
Health systems, Clinical departments, Nursing leaders, Pharmacy and antimicrobial stewardship teams
Assessment

Capability Axes

An AI Health Index grade measures what a buyer can verify from public sources on the date shown. It is not a rating of how good the product is. A vendor can build an excellent system and grade low on an axis because it publishes nothing an outsider can check. How grades read

AI Capability
AI Centrality
BB on AI CentralityThe model is the engine of a core module. The platform carries other value, but this capability does not exist without it.
Vendor Published

Ask Eolas uses language models to retrieve institutional guidance and synthesize answers. The wider platform also manages documents, approvals, access and offline reference material, so those functions retain value independently of the generated response.

Autonomy and Oversight Model
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelThe oversight structure is described and one part is missing, commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.
Vendor Published

Clinical owners approve source content, manage access and review expiration dates. Users can inspect cited sources and must verify AI responses. The workflow supports human review, but automatic confidence thresholds and escalation triggers are unspecified.

Model and Technology Transparency
BB on Model and Technology TransparencyThe approach or the suppliers are named without the version and update discipline behind them. Naming a supplier is the entry to this band both here and on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, which ask different questions of the same disclosure: who receives the data, and what produces the output.
Vendor Published

Ask Eolas combines retrieval of institutional guidelines with a pretrained language model for search and synthesis. OpenAI and AWS are named AI providers. Specific production model versions, training adaptations and update practices remain unspecified.

Model Supply Chain Disclosure
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureSubstantial partial disclosure, or a chain that is structurally short: an in house build, a cleared model that cannot be quietly swapped, or a deployment where the transfer does not occur at all. Naming the model provider exits the band below into this one; the axis rises from here on the completeness of the party list and on the terms that govern data once it arrives.
Vendor Published

The privacy policy names OpenAI and AWS as AI service providers and permits changes to other providers. Inputs and outputs can be shared with them. A complete provider inventory with model retention and training terms is unavailable.

Clinical and Operational Evidence
AA on Clinical and Operational EvidencePeer reviewed or independently evaluated performance, prospective and multi site where the claim requires it, with the method available to read. The grade describes the strength of the evidence, not its direction: a rigorous study that found no benefit grades by its design, and the note leads with what it found.
Peer Reviewed Publication

A March 2026 npj Antimicrobials and Resistance study randomized 45 clinicians across three groups. The Ask Eolas group had no prescribing errors among 15 participants, versus six and eight in comparator groups. This was a simulation at one institution.

AI Safety and PHI Stewardship
BB on AI Safety and PHI StewardshipCategorical commitments are published, such as no training on customer data, without the retention schedule behind them.
Vendor Published

Patient information is prohibited, and ordinary account data is retained through the account period, subject to legal exceptions. AI inputs reach external providers. Model training use and provider retention limits remain unspecified; security incident procedures do not describe AI safety response.

Regulatory and Compliance
HIPAA and BAA Posture
BB on HIPAA and BAA PostureBusiness associate status is stated and supported by a substantive privacy document, with the agreement or its scope not fully published. For a vendor outside the United States, an equivalent regime documented to this depth grades here. A vendor whose product does not process protected health information grades here too when it says so plainly and explains the scope, with a service privacy document behind it: stating a position a buyer can rely on is the posture this axis grades, and the band above is closed to it because there is no agreement to publish.
Vendor Published

The application explicitly excludes patient data and is not designed for HIPAA patient processing. A service privacy policy covers user accounts, inputs and AI providers. Institutions use the platform for professional knowledge rather than patient records.

Security Certifications and Trust Center
CC on Security Certifications and Trust CenterControls are described with an outside check behind them, such as independent penetration testing on a stated cadence, but no attestation against a recognized framework. A certification that tests the software security features rather than the vendor operations, such as federal health IT certification, is an outside check of this kind.
Vendor Published

Independent penetration testing occurs at least annually. The security program follows SOC 2 criteria, which is different from holding a SOC 2 attestation. The public trust center shows monitored controls without an accessible audit report.

FDA and Regulatory Status
CC on FDA and Regulatory StatusNo device claim is made and the product is scoped accordingly. Most administrative and operational products sit here and are not penalized for it, because this axis grades the appropriateness of the positioning rather than possession of a clearance.
Vendor Published

The service is restricted to qualified healthcare professionals and reference use. AI responses are expressly excluded from medical advice, diagnosis or treatment recommendations, leaving clinical judgment with the user rather than an autonomous device.

AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA governance framework with named process behind it, such as certification to an artificial intelligence management standard, or material written for a customer own review committee to evaluate the product with. A framework covering the vendor whole portfolio counts when its scope reaches this product; what it cannot supply is the product specific evaluation the band above asks for. Published results within the one group where the performance of this product is most at risk also sit here: evaluation on the question this axis asks, short of the comparison across groups the band above requires. A medical device clearance or certification, and the quality system behind it, does not reach this band on its own; it is graded under regulatory status. A regulator reviewed plan governing how the model may change does reach it.
Peer Reviewed Publication

The antimicrobial evaluation uses staged case complexity, a second reader workflow and retained query records to examine decision support. It provides a structured evaluation process, while comparative demographic fairness and separate model behavior audits remain unestablished.

AI Liability and Recourse
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA published falsifiable commitment, or a real correction route the affected person can exercise against the vendor. A published error rate with its method and denominator grades here. A statutory right that runs to the covered entity rather than to the vendor does not reach this band on its own: every other route here asks something of the vendor, and being located in a particular jurisdiction is not conduct.
Peer Reviewed Publication

The prescribing simulation provides a measurable error result with a stated comparator and denominator. Citation links and audit history support review. These mechanisms do not create a contractual obligation to compensate for or remedy incorrect clinical output.

Integration and Deployment
EHR and Interoperability Depth
CC on EHR and Interoperability DepthIntegration is claimed through standards or a middleware layer with no system named and nothing to verify.
Vendor Published

Western Health and Social Care Trust opens Eolas from Epic during its Encompass rollout. PolicyStat and SharePoint supply reference content. This supports access to guidance, but does not establish reading or writing patient records through an EHR interface.

Deployment Model and Data Residency
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyOptions and residency are stated with isolation or the processing path left open.
Vendor Published

The service uses AWS databases in Ireland, with regional arrangements available by health system. Mobile reference access can work offline. Tenant isolation and the complete cross border route for external model processing remain unspecified.

Commercial
Commercial Transparency
BB on Commercial TransparencyA price or a pricing basis is published without full tiers, so a buyer can size the cost before making contact.
Vendor Published

Teams can start with a free plan for up to 20 users. Paid options include £1 per user per month and £2,500 annually for up to 250 members. Their overlap and AI inclusion are unclear; health systems receive custom quotes.

Setting and Specialty Coverage
BB on Setting and Specialty CoverageCoverage is named with validation behind part of it.
Vendor Published

Named deployments span emergency medicine, pharmacy, maternity, pediatrics and intensive care. Ask Eolas has controlled evidence for antimicrobial prescribing simulations. That result does not establish equivalent AI performance across the full clinical and nursing offering.

Commercial

Pricing

Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.

Entry Price Pricing Basis BAA Tier Implementation Source
£1 per user per month; AI inclusion unconfirmed
 Team size and annual subscription; health systems by custom quote. Patient data is prohibited; the service is not designed for HIPAA patient processing. Content migration is a listed feature; no separate fee is stated. Vendor Published

A free plan covers up to 20 users. A separate £2,500 annual team plan covers up to 250 members. The overlapping plans do not establish a single AI subscription price.