Tripletime

Every input path runs through models: snipped text and uploaded referral packages are parsed and placed into the correct note sections, ambient speech fills the history of present illness and plan, dictation is sorted rather than transcribed verbatim, phone photographs are read by OCR, and the assistant layer generates referral letters, after visit summaries and billing suggestions. No human scribe tier and no services layer underneath.

Graded B on a design behaviour that is demonstrated rather than claimed, and it is the most encouraging thing on this record. In the published pre chart example the system populates what it can source from prior documents and leaves what it cannot know as EXPLICIT PLACEHOLDERS, reading history of presenting illness to be documented during visit, examination pending, results pending, social history pending. Marking absent information as absent instead of producing plausible filler is precisely the failure mode that error research in this category, most rigorously by Tortus, identifies as the dangerous one, and a product that visibly declines to invent is easier to review safely. The note is prepared for the clinician to complete and sign. Held at B rather than A because no confidence threshold, error rate, hallucination measurement or abstention policy is published, and because content pulled from snipped prior reports enters the note without any described verification that the snip was read correctly.

No model card, named model, accuracy figure, error rate or evaluation methodology located for any of the four input paths, which is a notable gap given that OCR of a photographed blister pack and mid consultation language switching are both harder problems than ordinary transcription and both are sold as capabilities. Accuracy is asserted through the phrase medical grade, applied to both the OCR and the bilingual handling, which describes an intention rather than a measurement. The single quantified claim, up to three hours saved per clinician per day, carries no denominator or method.

No study, controlled evaluation, third party rating, institutional customer or deployment count located. Testimonials are a step better than most of this tail because individual physicians are named with their cities, in Toronto, Montreal and Calgary, rather than reduced to initials, but they remain vendor selected quotes from individual clinicians rather than an organisation attesting to a deployment. The claim that clinicians save up to three hours a day is unsupported by any published measurement.

Two unqualified commitments that together cover the questions this axis exists to ask. Tripletime states plainly that it does NOT TRAIN ITS MODELS ON CUSTOMER DATA, with no third party carve out of the kind that held Tali to a B, and that it does NOT STORE ANY AUDIO. Compliance is claimed across three regimes rather than one, HIPAA, PIPEDA and GDPR, which is consistent with a Canadian vendor serving cross border users. Doximity holds an A on this axis for an audio commitment alone with the training question left open; Tripletime closes both. The remaining gap, recorded rather than penalised here because it belongs on the residency axis, is that no hosting region or storage location is stated for the notes and images that ARE retained, and the product does retain photographed documents and synced content across devices.

Compliance is claimed across HIPAA, PIPEDA and GDPR, displayed prominently and addressed directly in the vendor's own FAQ, which also references NHS requirements. Naming the Canadian and European regimes alongside HIPAA is more precise than the single regime claim typical in this lane and matches where the company appears to sell. Held at B because no business associate agreement terms, availability or tier gating are published, and because a compliance claim across three jurisdictions is a broad assertion that a buyer should ask the vendor to evidence for their own regime specifically.

A watchlist phrasing this index has caught before, and it should be read carefully. Tripletime states it uses SOC 2 and ISO 27001 CERTIFIED PROVIDERS AT ALL STAGES. That certifies its suppliers and infrastructure vendors, not Tripletime's own controls, processes or software, which is what a security review actually asks for. RXNT was graded C on the same distinction for hosting in SOC 2 Type II certified data centres, and the full watchlist in this lane now also includes SOC 2 aligned, verified by a third party auditor unnamed, military grade security and bank level encryption. Graded C rather than Not Rated because real certifications exist somewhere in the stack and the vendor is being reasonably precise about whose they are. Ask whether Tripletime itself holds a SOC 2 Type II report, and if not, when.

Not a regulated medical device and none claimed or required for documentation. The assistant layer answers clinical questions using the context of a patient's notes, which is closer to the decision support boundary than pure documentation, but it is framed as retrieval over the clinician's own record rather than as recommendation, and no diagnostic or therapeutic suggestion was found.

Graded B for treating language variation as an engineering requirement rather than a caveat, which is the same basis on which Corti and voize earned this grade for accent handling. Tripletime is the FIRST VENDOR IN THIS INDEX TO CLAIM MID CONSULTATION CODE SWITCHING as a designed property: it states that a clinician can move between English and French part way through an encounter and the system auto syncs and still produces the note in the target language regardless of input language, with medical terminology held accurate in both, citing CABG and pontage coronarien. Code switching mid conversation is materially harder than supporting two languages, it is the daily reality of bilingual practice in Canada, and until now this index had recorded it only once, in an app store review written by a clinician rather than claimed by any vendor. The billing code feature also stays off the coding gradient: codes are suggested from documented procedures and diagnoses with no revenue lift, capture or optimisation framing anywhere, which is the Wavo pattern. Held at B because no performance breakdown by language, accent or speaker is published, and the whole bilingual claim rests on assertion.

The weakest part of the record and the claim shape this index treats as a warning. The site says the product WORKS ACROSS ANY EHR and displays a logo wall covering Accuro, Arya, athenahealth, Epic, Greenway, NextGen, Oracle, Telus and Meditech, a spread that usefully signals the Canadian market through Accuro and Telus Health. But NO INTEGRATION MECHANISM IS DESCRIBED ANYWHERE: no API, no standard, no write back, no named connector, and no supported systems page. In this lane universal compatibility is normally a consequence of not integrating rather than of integrating well, which is the finding this index recorded against LucasAI, and a desktop application that produces a note for the clinician to move into the chart fits that pattern. Templates are imported FROM the EMR, which is a read, not a write. Establish what actually happens to the finished note before assuming these logos represent integrations.

The architecture is described clearly even though the residency is not. Tripletime ships a desktop application with a companion mobile app on iOS 15 and Android 5 or later, and recordings and photographs sync automatically from phone to desktop, which is a coherent design for a clinician moving between clinic room and workstation. What is absent is any statement of hosting region, storage location, residency option or sub processor list. That gap is concrete rather than theoretical here, because the vendor claims compliance with PIPEDA and GDPR alongside HIPAA, and each of those points at a different answer about where data may sit. For a Canadian clinician, whether patient content crosses the border is a question the product does not answer.

A published pricing page exists and the trial terms are stated plainly on the landing page rather than buried: free for 14 days with no credit card required, plus a free mobile app download on both platforms. Removing the card capture step lets a clinician evaluate output on their own consultations before any commitment, which this index credits. Held at B rather than A because the tier structure and what each tier gates were not confirmed, and because no enterprise or group terms are described for a product sold to specialist practices where multi clinician licensing is the likely purchase.

Deliberately narrow and genuinely deep, which this index prefers to a large unsupported specialty count. Coverage is cardiology, internal medicine and oncology, aimed at specialist consultation work rather than at primary care volume. The cardiology depth passes the instrument test: templates are described as built by cardiologists working with guideline directed medical therapy, coronary anatomy and high sensitivity troponin, and the published sample note handles catheterisation findings, ejection fraction across serial studies, stress imaging and perfusion defects as structured longitudinal history rather than as narrative. Telephone and video consultations are supported alongside in person. Held at B because three specialties is a narrow footprint and no inpatient, procedural or emergency setting is addressed.