Retrieve Medical

The extraction and surfacing engine is the whole product. There is no EHR, no services business and no workflow suite underneath it, and both commercial products, the inpatient documentation integrity application and the outpatient visit preparation tool, are the same natural language processing and machine learning engine pointed at different settings. Remove the model and nothing remains.

The human gate is explicit and structural rather than implied. The company describes surfaced comorbidities being presented to the physician's screen for validation and potential inclusion if deemed necessary by the attending physician, and states plainly that the clinician decides what is relevant. Verification is supported rather than merely permitted, because any highlighted item opens to the underlying note or result in its original context inside the EMR, which is a stronger affordance than linking to the vendor's own copy of a document. Held at B because nothing quantifies how the gate performs: no acceptance or rejection rate is published, no confidence signal or threshold routes anything, and no abstention behaviour is described for a thin record. The write back path also deserves a question, since a single action inserts data into the chart; ask what is logged about who accepted what, and whether the entry is attributable and reversible.

The technology is described only as advanced natural language processing and artificial intelligence. No model or model family is named, no accuracy figure is published, no omission or false negative measure exists, and no evaluation methodology accompanies the study the company promotes. The one real transparency property is at the output level and it is a good one: any surfaced item can be opened in place to show the actual note or result in its original context in the EMR, so a physician checks the source system rather than the vendor's rendering of it. That establishes where a statement came from without establishing how often the engine is wrong or what it misses.

A real study at real scale measuring the wrong thing, which is a pattern in this category. The company reports analysing 10,542 patient charts and identifying 12,506 additional comorbidities and diagnoses, alongside a substantial reduction in physician queries. The chart count is a genuine denominator and larger than most vendors here can show. But the study is vendor run and announced by press release rather than peer reviewed, no comparator or baseline is described, and the outcome measured is the NUMBER OF ITEMS THE SOFTWARE SURFACED, not whether they were correct, clinically material, or accepted. Note the precise gap, because it mirrors another record in this category from the opposite direction: Regard publishes how many of its recommendations clinicians ACCEPTED without saying how many were made, and Retrieve publishes how many were IDENTIFIED without saying how many were accepted. Neither permits an acceptance rate to be calculated, and that ratio is the number that matters. Ask for it.

No retention period, no statement on whether customer data is used to train or improve models, and no de identification posture was located on any retrieved surface. Not Rated records absent evidence rather than an assessed weakness. The questions are live because the product is described as real time and cloud based while operating against the record inside the hospital's EMR, and because the outpatient product optionally reaches health information exchanges for records held by other organisations. Establish what leaves the institution, what is retained, and for how long.

No HIPAA compliance statement and no business associate agreement terms were located on any retrieved surface. A BAA plainly exists given hospital deployment, but the index grades what is disclosed and nothing is.

No SOC 2, HITRUST, ISO 27001 or other attestation was located, and no trust centre or security page was found. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval rather than an assessed weakness. For a cloud application reading and writing inside a hospital EMR, an attestation and its scope should be the first item requested.

No FDA clearance, device authorisation or clinical decision support exemption analysis was located. Not Rated reflects absent retrieval. The scoping question is worth raising even though the product is positioned as documentation rather than diagnosis, because the marketing describes alerting a clinician to issues that could affect medical decision making and surfacing potential risk factors and next steps. Documentation integrity and decision support are different regulatory conversations, and the product's own language reaches into the second.

The grade describes incentive structure and disclosure, not wrongdoing, and the counterweights are real and belong in the same paragraph. The physician validates every item and decides relevance, the underlying evidence is viewable in the original record before anything is accepted, the stated goal is documentation that is accurate and appropriate and reflects the complexity of care actually delivered, the reported reduction in physician queries is a genuine burden benefit rather than a revenue one, and the company is chaired by a past president of a major clinical society. Against that, the revenue argument is made openly and is the company's own framing: surfacing additional comorbidities raises the Case Mix Index, that index directly affects reimbursement levels, and hospitals can anticipate increased revenue over time. Severity capture and risk adjustment are among the most litigated areas of United States healthcare compliance, and this makes a fourth product in this index whose documentation moves the payment unit at the admission level. Separately, no fairness, subgroup or demographic performance disclosure of any kind was located.

Stronger than most of this category on the property that matters least often and matters here: it WRITES BACK. Most products in this lane read the record and hand the clinician a summary to act on manually. This one pulls the relevant data and enters it into the chart in the correct format and the correct place once the physician accepts it, which removes the recurring transcription cost that read only tools leave behind. Three EHRs are named explicitly, Epic, Cerner and Meditech, and the outpatient product offers optional health information exchange access for records the institution does not hold. Held at B because the accompanying claim to integrate seamlessly with all EHRs is unfalsifiable as written, no integration mechanism or standard is described, and no marketplace listing or third party technical review was located to corroborate the breadth.

Described as a real time cloud based application, which establishes a hosted delivery model with no customer hosted or on premise option offered. Nothing further is published: no cloud provider, no region, no residency commitment and no statement about where record content is processed relative to the hospital that holds it. Graded C because the delivery model is clear and the residency picture is entirely absent.

No price, tier or pricing mechanism is published on any retrieved surface. Not Rated is the house convention for absent pricing rather than a low grade. One supplier continuity note that belongs alongside rather than inside the commercial assessment: the parent is publicly traded, which means financial disclosures are available to a buyer performing vendor due diligence, an option that does not exist with most private vendors in this category. That is recorded as a procurement fact and is not used for or against product quality.

Both major settings are covered by purpose built products rather than by one tool stretched across them. Retrieve Dx addresses inpatient documentation integrity, working in comorbid and major comorbid condition terms and Case Mix Index, while PreviewMD addresses outpatient visit preparation and produces consult requests and admission notes with ICD-10 codes paired to diagnoses. The company reports rapid implementation with minimal IT involvement and staff training inside a single day, which lowers the adoption barrier for smaller organisations. Graded B rather than A because coverage is by setting rather than by specialty, and no specialty specific behaviour or instrument level depth was located in either product.