OneChart

Capture, transcription, note structuring, extraction from charts and referrals, coding suggestions and patient intake are all model output. No human scribe layer, no services tier and no underlying practice management product that the AI is a feature of. The company sells the documentation engine itself and also licenses it as embeddable widgets and white label components, which is the AI being the product rather than a feature attached to one.

A review gate is described explicitly and sits before anything leaves the product: the clinician edits or approves the note, then exports it to the record. Coding output is framed as suggestion rather than assignment, and is delivered with supporting context and confidence levels so the clinician has something to evaluate rather than a bare code to accept. The company states in its own materials that control stays with the physician.

Held at B rather than A because no confidence threshold, abstention behaviour or defined escalation path is published, and because the product also pre fills pathology requisitions and schedules post operative protocols from spoken input, which reaches beyond note text into clinical artefacts without a separately described review step for those outputs.

Graded B on one specific and uncommon disclosure rather than on general openness. Code suggestions are presented with supporting context and confidence levels, which surfaces a per suggestion confidence signal to the clinician at the point of decision. Across this wave only SimboAlphus offers anything comparable, and it exposes a per note quality score through an API rather than a per code level in the interface.

Held well short of A because no model card, named model, accuracy methodology or calibration basis for those confidence levels was located, so a clinician can see a confidence number without knowing what it was measured against. Ask what the confidence level is calibrated on, and what threshold, if any, changes the behaviour of the product.

Nothing identifies any party in the chain: no model or model family, no foundation model provider, no hosting arrangement and no sub processor list was located in two passes, and no training position was found in either direction. Three content categories flow through that unnamed chain and they should be asked about separately rather than as one retention question, because they are unlikely to be governed identically.

The product ingests prior charts, laboratory results, imaging and referrals to build summaries, so it holds historical record content. It captures patient recorded audio directly, through a link sent by message that lets a patient describe symptoms by voice before the visit. And it operates across dentistry, psychiatry and behavioural health alongside general practice, so some of what it holds carries the heightened protections attaching to mental health records.

The patient recorded audio is the category with no obvious owner in the usual framing, and it deserves its own answer: it was created by the patient, at the vendor's invitation, before any clinician was involved, and it sits with the vendor rather than in a chart. Ask who holds it, for how long, whether it is used for improvement, and what a patient is told when they record it.

No study, controlled evaluation, published accuracy figure, third party rating or verified deployment count located. The performance claims are all vendor stated and carry no denominators or method: a 50 percent reduction in manual documentation time, 20 hours saved weekly on charting, and more than 30 thousand dollars in lost revenue recovered. The named organisation claims require particular care.

Its own materials list Kaiser Permanente and the University of British Columbia among organisations it serves, which for a nine person seed stage company is a claim large enough that a buyer should ask for the contracting entity, the scope and the number of clinicians before crediting it. Separately, the company publishes ranked best AI scribe listicles on its own domain placing itself first, which this index treats as marketing content rather than as assessment.

Health privacy compliance is asserted repeatedly across the product pages, and no retention schedule, audio deletion commitment, de identification practice or statement on whether customer content is used to train models was located. That combination is the substance of this axis and it is the largest gap on this record.

The second pass makes the exposure wider than the earlier assessment recorded, in three directions.

The product ingests prior charts, laboratory results, imaging and referrals to build summaries, so it holds historical record content as well as encounter audio. It captures patient recorded audio directly, through a link sent by text or email that lets a patient describe symptoms by voice before the visit, which is patient generated content held by the vendor outside any clinical encounter. And it operates across dentistry, psychiatry and behavioural health alongside general practice, so some of what it holds carries the heightened protections attaching to mental health records.

Those three categories should be asked about separately rather than folded into one retention question, because they are unlikely to be governed identically. Patient recorded symptom audio in particular has no obvious owner in the usual framing: it was created by the patient, at the vendor's invitation, before the clinician was involved.

The training question is unanswered in either direction and it matters more where behavioural health content is in scope. Peers now state a position plainly, some committing that clinical content is never used to train or fine tune models and at least one operating an explicit permission gate. Neither formulation appears here.

Ask for the retention schedule per content type, and the training position in contract language rather than marketing.

HIPAA compliance is stated consistently across product and specialty pages. No business associate agreement terms, availability or tier gating were published, so this sits at the common rung of the ladder in this lane: compliance claimed, BAA terms unpublished.

Given the company is Canadian and handles both OHIP and US code sets, the second question a buyer should ask is which regime applies to their data, since HIPAA and Canadian provincial privacy law impose different obligations and the product appears to serve both markets.

No named or dated certification, audit report, penetration testing statement or trust centre was located in a second pass. Security is described through the phrase health privacy compliant, which is a regulatory claim rather than an attestation, and there is no certifying body for that rule.

Two features of how this product is sold make the absence more consequential than the tier norm.

It is offered with a free plan aimed at solo practitioners and small practices. That buyer will never run a vendor security review and has no procurement function, yet remains the party carrying the regulatory obligation. A vendor reaching clinicians who cannot assess it has a stronger reason to publish independent assurance than one selling to a hospital security team, not a weaker one.

And the vendor offers open interfaces, embeddable widgets and white label components so other software companies can place its documentation and coding functions inside their own products. A developer buying that does not merely trust this vendor; it inherits this vendor's posture into its own product and passes it downstream to practices and patients who will never see the name. Subprocessors, retention and access controls are more load bearing for a component sold to builders than for a product sold to one clinic.

The breadth of the surface compounds both. This platform ingests charts, laboratory results, imaging and referrals, captures patient recorded audio, and operates across general practice, dentistry, psychiatry and behavioural health.

Fairness is due to a company at this stage offering a free tier. Ask which report is held, of which type and period, and whether its scope covers the embeddable components as well as the hosted product.

No clearance claimed and none required for documentation. The two features flagged in the earlier assessment are confirmed, and the second pass finds several more, because this product's scope is considerably wider than a scribe.

The sharpest is the dermatology workflow. The clinician describes a lesion aloud, the system tags its location on a body map, suggests diagnostic codes and pre fills the pathology requisition. Two things happen there that documentation does not do. A requisition is an order, so the system is preparing an action taken on the patient rather than recording one. And the anatomical site is being derived from speech and placed on the form that will accompany a specimen. A site recorded incorrectly on a requisition is a wrong site error in the specimen chain, and it is the kind that surfaces late, after a result is attributed to the wrong lesion. Establish what the clinician confirms about the site before the requisition is generated, and whether the body map tag is shown for confirmation separately from the note.

Three further surfaces sit beyond documentation. The paediatric workflow auto updates growth charts, which writes structured measurements, and inserts age specific anticipatory guidance paragraphs, which is clinical advice content generated rather than recorded. The inpatient workflow produces shift handover summaries, and handover is a recognised high risk communication point where omission causes harm. And contextual prompts surfacing medication adherence and history to guide decision making at the point of care are decision support rather than documentation.

A patient facing element is also present: patients receive a link and record their symptoms by voice before the visit, with no clinician in that exchange.

Ask which modules are in contract, because each of these carries a different conversation.

Two things put this at C. The revenue framing is present but measured: the product claims more than 30 thousand dollars in lost revenue recovered through more complete documentation and coding support, which is capture intensity language of the kind this index tracks across the coding gradient, though without the maximise, optimise or leaving money on the table framing that pushes other vendors to the aggressive end.

The real counterweight is that it preserves the cosmetic versus medically necessary distinction in plastic surgery documentation, which is a control against exactly the misclassification a payer would challenge, and delivers codes with confidence levels rather than bare numbers. Against that, no fairness statement, subgroup analysis, accent or dialect disclosure or performance breakdown of any kind was located, despite multilingual support being sold as a paid tier feature.

One mechanism here is well placed and uncommon: code suggestions are presented with supporting context and confidence levels, so a per suggestion confidence signal reaches the clinician at the point of decision rather than sitting in an interface only an integrator sees. Only one other vendor assessed in this wave offers anything comparable, and it exposes a per note quality score through a programming interface rather than a per code confidence in the user's view.

Surfacing confidence where the decision is made is the more useful placement, because it lets the person accepting or rejecting a code weight it, which is exactly the discretion a coding suggestion should preserve. Held at C because the signal has no published basis.

No model card, accuracy methodology or calibration reference was located, so a clinician sees a confidence number without knowing what it was measured against, what a high one has historically meant, or whether any threshold changes the product's behaviour. A confidence figure that is not calibrated against anything trains users to trust it at whatever level feels right, which can be worse than no figure. No warranty, indemnity or remediation commitment was located either. Ask what the confidence level is calibrated on, and what a stated confidence has meant in practice for accepted suggestions.

Browser extensions plus open APIs, with confirmed integrations named rather than implied: Jane, WebPT and Empower PT, and a strategic partnership with C3 EMR enabling native ambient documentation and telehealth workflows. Notes export to PDF, TXT or copy and paste as a fallback. What earns the B over the transfer tier is the candour about its own ceiling.

The company states in its own materials that for hospital grade systems the level of bidirectional sync requires validation, and that in some cases workflows still rely on structured export rather than full native write back. Vendors in this lane routinely claim seamless EHR integration while shipping copy and paste. Naming the limit before a buyer discovers it is the behaviour this index credits.

No hosting region, residency option, subprocessor list or on premise path was located, and nothing establishes whether a third party model service processes the encounter or what it retains. Delivery is a web platform with browser extensions and interfaces.

The earlier assessment framed the gap correctly as specific rather than generic, and it stands. This is a Canadian company serving clinicians on both sides of the border. Provincial health privacy law and the United States rule point at different answers, and at least one province expects health information to remain in country while the United States rule imposes no localisation requirement at all. So where the audio and notes physically sit is a question with a buyer on each side needing a different answer, and neither can infer theirs from the other's.

The second pass adds a further reason the answer matters. The vendor offers embeddable widgets and white label components so other software companies can place its functions inside their own products. Where that happens the data path acquires another party and another set of terms, and the clinician using the host product may not know this vendor is involved at all. Establish, for any white labelled deployment, which organisation holds what and under whose agreement.

The ingestion surface makes residency a larger question than a single conversation. The product pulls charts, laboratory results, imaging and referrals to build summaries, and captures patient recorded audio through links sent by text or email. All of that moves toward the vendor before any note exists.

Ask for the hosting region and whether it can be pinned per jurisdiction, the subprocessor list, and the model provider.

A full published ladder with the gating disclosed, which is rare in this lane and rarer still at this company size. Free at up to 40 notes a month with one template, Plus at 79 dollars per user per month for up to 250 notes with unlimited templates and multilingual support, Pro at 125 dollars for unlimited notes plus billing code suggestions, PDF form filling and voice intake, and custom enterprise terms for API integrations and dedicated support.

The tier structure itself is informative in the way this index rewards: coding support and voice intake are Pro only, so the real entry price for a practice that wants the billing features is 125 dollars rather than 79. Only the enterprise tier is unpriced, which is the normal and defensible exception.

The strongest axis on this record and unusually broad for a company of this size. Coverage reaches dentistry, plastic surgery, dermatology, paediatrics, physiotherapy, sports medicine, family medicine, psychiatry and behavioral health, and the depth is described at instrument level rather than as a template count. Plastic surgery preserves the cosmetic versus reconstructive distinction in the documentation.

Dermatology tags a spoken lesion description onto a body map and pre fills the pathology requisition. Paediatrics updates growth charts and inserts age specific anticipatory guidance. Behavioral health produces SOAP, DAP and BIRP with modality awareness across CBT and DBT. Inpatient work covers admission checklists, vitals, medication reconciliation and shift handoff summaries.

It also handles OHIP alongside ICD-10 and CPT, which means it documents to a Canadian provincial billing schedule as well as US code sets, something almost nothing else in this index attempts. Multilingual support is available from the paid tier upward.