Luminare

The mechanism as described is a structured SIRS screening checklist combined with the nurse's own assessment, driving the hospital's existing sepsis protocol. That is rule based screening plus workflow automation, not machine learning, and the grade describes the mechanism rather than the quality of the product. THE MECHANISM IS THE POINT HERE RATHER THAN A SHORTFALL: the company argues explicitly that machine learning prediction has not improved sepsis outcomes because staff fail to intervene, and it built a response layer instead of a better model. Held at C rather than lower because the product does process record data in real time against criteria and is squarely doing this category's job. One inconsistency recorded: marketing carries some AI framing, including a claim of commitment to saving lives with AI, that the described mechanism does not support. Ask which component, if any, is learned.

A STRUCTURAL PROPERTY WORTH NAMING, AND IT IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER VENDOR IN THIS CATEGORY: THE HUMAN IS AN INPUT, NOT AN OVERSEER. Every competitor computes a risk score from data and presents it to a clinician who may or may not read it. Luminare requires the nurse's assessment as part of the screen, so the system cannot produce an output that a clinician passively ignores. That inverts the automation bias problem this category otherwise struggles with, and a nurse quoted in the company's own materials makes the point that it does not override her judgment. Nothing is auto closed, auto escalated or suppressed, and there is no low risk output creating the invisible failure mode seen elsewhere in this lane. THE HONEST COUNTERWEIGHT, and it is on the record: this design adds work rather than removing it, its value depends entirely on nurses completing screens every shift, and a checklist completed under time pressure can be completed carelessly. That is why the company's headline metric is compliance. Held below A because no false negative behaviour, threshold or override analysis is published.

You can tell exactly what this product does, which places it at the transparent end of a category whose anchor record scores D on this axis. The screening basis is a named, published clinical standard in SIRS criteria, the second input is the nurse's documented assessment, and the action taken is the hospital's own sepsis protocol rendered in SBAR format. A clinician can trace any output back to a criterion they already know and to their own institution's protocol, and can disagree with either. Same reasoning that carried Elaborate and VieCure to B on rules based mechanisms. Held below A because the enhancement to standard SIRS screening is asserted rather than specified, so the one component that differentiates it from a paper checklist is undisclosed, and because no operating characteristics of the screen are published anywhere.

PRECISION MATTERS ON WHAT THE PUBLICATION IS. Ferreira LD, McCants D, Velamuri S, Using machine learning for process improvement in sepsis management, Journal of Healthcare Quality Research 2023;38(5):304-311, published online 29 October 2022. It is a REVIEW ARTICLE synthesising PubMed literature from January 2017 to February 2022, not original research and not an evaluation of Luminare's product. The paper states of itself that it does not present novel findings. Conflicts are disclosed: Velamuri is co founder and chief executive of Luminare and a co author holds an intern position there. So it is a well founded, peer reviewed POSITION PAPER arguing the thesis the company sells against, and it should be credited as intellectual contribution rather than as product evidence. Everything else is vendor reported without derivation: sepsis detected 15 times faster than a national average that is never defined, sepsis alert compliance improved more than fivefold over an unstated baseline, and a single site report of 12 percent lower mortality and 27 percent fewer life threatening emergencies in a first year. No denominator, no comparison group, no measurement method and no time period accompanies any of them. No sensitivity, positive predictive value, alert burden or lead time figure is published anywhere.

One disclosure of substance and no governing documentation around it. The published grant programme states plainly that qualifying hospitals receiving free deployments must share data with Luminare, alongside focus group participation and testimonials. Disclosing that condition publicly is more candid than most vendors manage. But no privacy policy, data processing statement, retention period, de identification method or training use disclosure was located, so what data sharing means in scope and duration is unestablished. A buyer on the grant tier should establish exactly which data, for how long, for what purpose, and whether the arrangement survives the grant period.

No statement on business associate agreements, execution terms, cost or subprocessor disclosure was located. Not Rated means no public evidence was found rather than evidence of weakness. Named hospital deployments including an enterprise agreement with Cedars-Sinai mean agreements plainly exist, but nothing about them is published.

No SOC 2 of any type, HITRUST, ISO 27001, trust centre or report request path was located. Not Rated means no public evidence was found. Worth flagging given the company also operates public sector products serving state health departments, FEMA and Department of Defense customers, environments that normally carry their own security requirements, none of which are described publicly.

Not FDA cleared, and the company has said it operates without clearance on the basis that it makes no claims about lives saved and issues no treatment recommendations, which is in substance a clinical decision support exclusion argument. TWO THINGS ARE TRUE AND BOTH BELONG ON THE RECORD. First, ITS EXCLUSION ARGUMENT IS THE STRONGEST IN THIS CATEGORY, and for exactly the reason the Epic Sepsis Model's is the weakest: the exclusion turns on whether a clinician can independently review the basis for the output, and here the basis is a published screening standard plus the hospital's own protocol, both fully reviewable. Second, there is visible tension between the stated basis and the marketing, since the product's advertised value is providing clear actionable intervention steps, and the site does publish mortality and outcome claims. Stated as a question for the vendor rather than as a legal conclusion, consistent with how this index handles the Cures Act throughout.

No subgroup performance, calibration or fairness analysis of any kind is published. THE SPECIFIC GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE HERE IS NOT ALGORITHMIC, IT IS AN INCENTIVE STRUCTURE, and the company states it openly enough to assess. Luminare markets a documented financial case built on increased sepsis capture: a 400 bed hospital coding 80 to 100 sepsis patients monthly is described as likely missing another 20, at 10,000 to 15,000 dollars average reimbursement, framed as up to 3.6 million dollars a year, alongside a clinical documentation improvement programme said to lift case mix index by around 10 percent. Identifying genuinely missed sepsis is the clinical goal and being paid appropriately for care delivered is legitimate, so this is recorded as a structure rather than an accusation. But a system that prompts staff to screen for and document sepsis, sold on the revenue from documenting more sepsis, points its clinical and commercial incentives in the same direction with no independent check, which is the tight loop this index records against OmniMD and Droxi Unlock. Sepsis coding is already an area of established payer scrutiny, which sharpens rather than softens the question.

Named partners rather than a generic integration claim: Microsoft, Cerner, CPSI and the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines registry are all listed as interoperability partners, and the company presented at the HIMSS Epic Interoperability Showcase in 2021. Bedside data is written directly back into the EMR rather than held in a separate system, which is a genuine two way integration and materially more than most of this lane offers. CPSI matters more than its profile suggests here, because it serves community and rural hospitals, which is the segment this product is aimed at. Held at B because Epic presence is showcase participation rather than a marketplace listing or partner review, no FHIR or SMART on FHIR capability is described, and the standalone tier explicitly requires no integration at all, so integration depth varies by tier in a way the pricing structure makes clear but the integration claims do not.

Publishes a genuine implementation ladder with timelines attached, which almost nothing else in this category does: a standalone product needing no integration and offered on a 30 day trial, an Enterprise Lite tier deployable in a few weeks, and a full enterprise platform implemented over months. THE STANDALONE NO INTEGRATION OPTION IS THE MOST PRACTICALLY USEFUL THING ON THIS RECORD FOR A SMALL HOSPITAL, because every other vendor in this lane requires a real time data feed before anything works at all, which excludes facilities without the IT capacity to build one. Named deployments include an enterprise agreement with Cedars-Sinai from 2023, two CHG hospitals and Cornerstone Specialty Hospitals Clear Lake. A separate onsite consulting workshop offering is described in three stages. Held below A because no hosting architecture, data residency commitment or technical prerequisite detail is published.

The best commercial disclosure in this category, in a lane where every other vendor publishes nothing at all. Three tiers are named with their contract structure and, crucially, THE UNIT OF PRICING IS STATED: a 30 day trial on the standalone product, a flat annual fee for Enterprise Lite, and PER PATIENT DAY on an annual contract for the enterprise platform. Naming the pricing unit lets a hospital model its own cost envelope before any conversation, which is the property that earns credit here. Also publishes a grant programme offering three, six or twelve month deployments at no financial cost to qualifying smaller and acute care facilities, with the conditions stated: screening compliance thresholds, best practice implementation, data sharing, focus groups, surveys and testimonials. Held at B rather than A because no actual figures or bands accompany any tier, so the ladder gives structure without magnitude.

Deliberately narrow: one condition, sepsis, in adult inpatient acute care. No paediatric or neonatal indication is stated, no ICU specific configuration is described, and no other clinical condition is covered. Narrowness is a strategic choice here rather than a gap, and specialisation is arguably why the workflow is as specific as it is, but this axis measures coverage and the coverage is single condition. Recorded separately for scoping clarity: the wider company also sells products unrelated to this record, including a vaccination management platform, an emergency response system, a syndromic screening tool and a record abstraction product named Leonardo, with public sector customers including state health departments, FEMA and Department of Defense. This record is scoped to the sepsis product only, per this index's convention of indexing by AI product rather than by company.