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.

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.

Not assessed. HIPAA compliance is asserted repeatedly across the product pages, but no retention schedule, audio deletion commitment, de identification practice or statement on whether customer content is used to train models was located. For a product that records patient encounters across dentistry, psychiatry and behavioral health, and that also ingests charts, labs, imaging and referrals, the absence of any published stewardship commitment is the largest gap on this record.

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.

Not assessed. No named or dated certification, audit report, penetration test or trust centre was located. Security is described only through the phrase HIPAA compliant, which is a regulatory claim rather than an attestation.

Not a regulated medical device and none claimed or required for documentation. Two features sit closer to the line than the rest and are worth watching rather than grading: surfacing medication adherence and history as smart prompts to guide decision making at the point of care, and pre filling a pathology requisition from a spoken lesion description. Both are decision adjacent outputs generated from ambient 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.

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.

Not assessed. Delivered as a web platform with browser extensions and APIs. No hosting region, residency option, sub processor list or on premise path was located. This is a specific gap for this vendor rather than a generic one: it is a Canadian company serving both Canadian and US clinicians, and provincial health privacy law and HIPAA point at different answers, so where the audio and notes physically sit is a question a buyer on either side of the border needs answered.

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.