Reteta

Ambient capture, note generation, pre charting, after visit summaries, referral letters and the coding output in Bcoder are all model produced. No human scribe tier and no services layer. The company is a product company launched out of a venture studio rather than an existing services business adding AI, and both products are sold as the thing itself rather than as a feature of a platform.

The review gate is described plainly, with clinicians reviewing and signing generated notes, and the explainability design is a real oversight mechanism rather than a slogan: if a clinician can trace any sentence in a note back to the moment in the conversation it came from, verification becomes an act they can actually perform in seconds rather than a re reading of the whole note against memory. That is the same property that makes Abridge the auditability benchmark in this lane. Held at B rather than A because the claim is asserted without a demonstration or an error rate, because coding suggestions and CDI prompts surface in real time during the encounter without any published confidence threshold or abstention behaviour, and because the figure that 80 percent of notes are accepted without edits is presented as a benefit when it also describes how often the review step changes nothing.

Graded B for one disclosure this index has been asking the whole category to make, and held at B rather than higher because the numbers around it do not reconcile. Reteta reports 86 percent accuracy ACROSS DIVERSE ACCENTS AND DIALECTS. No other ambient vendor found in this wave publishes an accuracy figure broken out by accent, and it is the exact ask this index has put to Augnito, whose entire differentiator is accent coverage but which converts it into unfalsifiable marketing. Reteta also describes explainability as an architectural property, stating every note entry traces back to its point in the conversation. Against that: the company publishes at least four accuracy claims that cannot all describe the same thing, 86 percent across accents, up to 95 percent accuracy on the homepage, 80 percent of notes accepted without edits, and 90 percent coding accuracy for Bcoder, with no methodology, denominator or evaluation design for any of them. Up to 95 percent is the unfalsifiable shape this index flags. The accent figure also sits in a blog post that compares Reteta with a named competitor, which is marketing content rather than technical documentation. Ask for the accent breakdown as a proper evaluation and this moves to A.

No study, controlled evaluation, third party assessment or named customer located. Adoption is described only as hundreds of satisfied healthcare providers, with no organisation named and no deployment count. Every performance figure is vendor stated without method: two hours saved per clinician per day, SOAP notes in under two minutes, burnout reduced by up to 75 percent, an 85 percent increase in claim approval, 70 percent coding productivity gain. Presence on the Elion and AVIA marketplaces is worth noting but not crediting as validation: the Elion profile is explicitly marked unclaimed, meaning it was generated by the directory rather than submitted and verified by the vendor.

End to end encryption is stated for PHI, and the company describes safeguarding data in transit and at rest. Nothing further was located: no audio retention schedule, no deletion commitment, no de identification practice and no statement on whether customer content is used to train models. Encryption without a retention answer is the ordinary position in this lane rather than a strong one. Given that the after visit summary generation reads patient language preference and infers health literacy level, a buyer should also ask what patient attributes the system derives and stores in order to do that.

At the upper end of B, on a specific and checkable claim rather than a generic one. Reteta states it is HIPAA ONE compliant, naming an actual third party HIPAA compliance certification programme rather than simply asserting that the product is HIPAA compliant. Naming the assessing body is meaningfully better than the bare claim most of this lane makes, and it gives a buyer something to request evidence of. Held at B rather than A because no business associate agreement terms, availability or tier gating are published, and because the certification date and scope were not located. Doximity holds the A on this axis because coverage there is automatic and universal with no separate step.

Not assessed. No SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test, audit report or trust centre located. The HIPAA ONE certification is a regulatory compliance attestation rather than a security controls attestation and is graded on the HIPAA axis instead, which is the same distinction this index applies elsewhere.

Not a regulated medical device and none claimed or required for documentation. The regulatory exposure here is payment integrity rather than device oversight, given real time coding suggestions, CDI gap identification during the encounter and a separate automated coding product.

Genuinely mixed, and both halves matter. The positives are real and unusual. Publishing an accuracy figure broken out by accent and dialect is the single most requested disclosure in this index's speech coverage and almost nobody does it. Generating the after visit summary to the patient's own health literacy level and preferred language is an accessibility design decision rather than a marketing line, and it addresses a failure mode the category otherwise ignores entirely. Explainability gives a clinician a way to challenge output. Against that, the coding posture puts it on the gradient: CDI capabilities identify documentation gaps UPFRONT and are described as compressing the CDI cycle from days to minutes, which is the point of care prompting pattern this index flags in Cleo and Solventum, and the outcome sold is an 85 percent increase in claim approval alongside claim ready notes. That framing sits at the defensive end, denial avoidance rather than coding intensity, which is nearer ScribeEMR and LucasAI than MarianaAI. No fairness statement, subgroup analysis or model card accompanies the accent figure.

Described as standards based and bidirectional: secure APIs over HL7 and FHIR, writing SOAP notes, coding and summaries back into the record, with Epic, Cerner, athenahealth and eClinicalWorks named, plus access to patient information and appointments from inside the platform. Naming a standard and naming systems is the right shape and puts this above the transfer tier. Two things hold it at B. The phrase bolts onto ANY EHR is the universality claim this index treats as a warning sign, since in this lane universal compatibility is usually a consequence of not integrating rather than of integrating well, and the named list ends in and more without a supported systems page. And no customer is named on any specific system, so the integrations are described rather than demonstrated. Establish in a sandbox whether write back lands as discrete coded fields or as a text blob.

Not assessed. Delivered as a cloud platform. No hosting region, residency option, sub processor list or on premise path was located.

Not assessed. No price, unit of pricing, tier structure or trial published, and no third party estimate located. Routes in are a demo request and marketplace listings. This follows the house convention of leaving the axis unrated rather than inventing a grade from an absence.

More than 15 specialties with specialty specific templates, spanning ambulatory practice and hospital or health system settings. The output range is wider than most small vendors attempt: SOAP notes, pre charting before the visit, after visit summaries, and referral letters to other specialties, which is a document type many scribes never produce. The distinguishing element is the after visit summary, generated with education materials, treatment regimens and caregiver notes tailored to the patient's health literacy and preferred language. That reaches the caregiver as a reader, not just the clinician and the payer. Held at B because the specialty count is modest against the leaders in this lane and no specialty instrument is named, which is this index's test for real domain depth as opposed to a template library.