Nextvisit AI

A multi agent system is the product: models that reference prior patient records, track clinical change and build patient timelines, alongside the capture and generation layer. Physician founded with no services or platform business underneath, and the founding psychiatrist is described as still using the product in his own practice.

Conventional draft and review with the gate clearly placed: notes are produced ready to sign, the clinician finalises them, and the mobile companion supports recording, editing and reviewing before pushing updates to the main workspace. Held at B because no acceptance rate, edit burden figure or confidence threshold is published, and because the marketing emphasis on minimising edits sits in tension with wanting a clinician to read carefully.

Architecture is described at a useful level, with multiple models collaborating and agents assigned to reference prior records and track change, but nothing is measured against it. The headline claim of over 98 percent accuracy carries no methodology, reference standard or denominator, and joins the other unverifiable accuracy percentages this index tracks. No model card or named models located.

Genuine third party review presence on G2 with vendor responses, which is a venue the company does not control, plus a claim of thousands of clinical notes processed and documentation time reduced by over 30 percent without denominator or method. One accolade should be read carefully rather than credited: the company cites being named Best AI Medical Scribe for Behavioral Health in New York of 2025, but no awarding body, criteria or entrant pool was located, and regional superlative awards of that shape are frequently directory placements rather than assessments. No study or controlled evaluation exists.

Not assessed, and this is the most consequential gap in the record. Secure data management is asserted, but no retention schedule, de identification practice or statement on whether customer content trains models was located. PHI stewardship is the weighted axis for behavioral documentation because the input is recorded psychiatric and psychotherapy conversation, and the benchmark in this segment is Mentalyc's explicit does not train and does not retain commitment backed by SOC 2 Type II. Nothing comparable is published here.

Not assessed. The materials reference regulatory compliance and compliant documentation in general terms, but no explicit HIPAA statement or business associate agreement posture was located, which is a notable omission for a product recording psychiatric sessions and one a buyer should close before any trial.

Not assessed. No named or dated attestation and no trust centre located in this pass.

Not a regulated medical device and none claimed for documentation. Flag rather than grade: the platform tracks RISK FACTORS across visits and surfaces insights intended to support clinical decisions. In behavioral health, risk tracking means suicide and self harm risk, which is the highest stakes inference in the specialty, and a buyer should establish exactly what the system infers, what it surfaces, and what it does not.

Nothing located. No fairness statement, subgroup analysis or accent and dialect performance disclosure, and no language coverage claimed. The absence matters here because behavioral health assessment already carries documented disparities in how symptoms are recorded across patient populations, and a system tracking hundreds of data points across visits will propagate whatever pattern it learns.

Integration is asserted rather than enumerated. The vendor positions the product as making the EHR work for the clinician, and a third party reviewer describes it integrating seamlessly with their EMR, but no named system, integration architecture or write back mechanism was located. The mobile companion pushes updates to the vendor's own workspace rather than to a record system.

Not assessed. Cloud delivered across desktop, web and a mobile companion application, but no hosting region, residency option or sub processor detail was located.

Partially published. An entry tier is described concretely at up to 15 SOAP notes a month with basic analytics and a single provider setup, which tells a solo clinician what they can evaluate without paying. No full rate card, tier ladder or per clinician figure was located, so what the product costs above that entry point cannot be determined without contact.

Deep within one specialty and properly enumerated on clinician type: psychiatrists, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, psychologists, therapists, licensed clinical social workers and physician assistants, across outpatient psychiatry, therapy clinics, community mental health centres and telehealth. Note types cover progress notes, SOAP and intake assessments. Its distinguishing depth is treatment specific tagging for Spravato, TMS and lithium monitoring, the last being genuinely specialised since lithium has a narrow therapeutic index and requires serial serum monitoring that a general tool would not track. Held at B rather than A because JotPsych covers the same specialty with more enumerated note structures and DSM-5-TR coding, and no language coverage is published here.