An orchestration agent, scoped with you before it is priced. This agent coordinates several specialised agents. Its orchestration follows your actual workflows — which is why it is scoped with you rather than bought off the shelf. We establish the scope together, then the quotation commits it.
The journeys described below form the scope that this review refines and the quotation commits. The specialised agents it coordinates can be ordered today.
Request a quote
● Public sector — Hospital admissions
AI agent for hospital admissions
An assistant that opens and completes admission files, checks entitlements and prepares the billing of the stay — the hospital officer keeps control of every file. A strictly administrative scope: identity, entitlements, billing — no care data is handled. HDS hosting in France for health data.
HDS hosting in France
No care data handled
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
The hospital officer keeps control
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Admissions office assistant · hosted in France
Prepare the administrative admission file for tomorrow's scheduled day-surgery admission.
File assembled. Identity checked against the document supplied, national health insurance entitlements open, complementary insurer identified with cover up to date. Missing: the insurer's agreement to cover a private room — request prepared.
No medical information consulted: the care record stays outside my scope.
⛓ Source · the patient's documents + entitlement services (administrative scope)
No medical information consulted: the care record stays outside my scope.
⛓ Source · the patient's documents + entitlement services (administrative scope)
Prepare the billing details for the stays closed this week.
17 files prepared: lengths of stay, cover arrangements, the shares payable by national health insurance, the complementary insurer and the patient, and the documents for the collection chain. Two files flagged: entitlements to confirm before issue.
Statements submitted to the admissions office before any invoicing.
✎ Action · billing prepared — the hospital officer approves
Statements submitted to the admissions office before any invoicing.
✎ Action · billing prepared — the hospital officer approves
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data hosted in France
Sovereign by designHDS hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The hospital officer decidesAdministrative only, never care
✦ In brief
In the admissions office, a Blue Lemon Agent agent assists the teams with the repetitive tasks — assembling admission files, checking entitlements (national health insurance, complementary insurer, means-tested cover, long-term conditions), preparing the billing of stays, answering patients and families. Its scope is strictly administrative: identity, entitlements, billing — no care data is handled, the medical record stays out of reach. HDS hosting in France for health data, a resource dedicated to and isolated for each establishment, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The hospital officer keeps control of every file. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your patients and their families reach it on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. Reaching the administration from the tool people already have means less non-take-up of rights and equal access to the service. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
7
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision taken without human approval
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
The context
Why AI matters to hospitals — and why they insist on HDS
The admissions office is the first link in the billing chain: an incomplete file means entitlements not opened, stays wrongly billed, income lost. But the data handled touches on health — the most demanding framework there is.
! The issue
Admissions teams are caught between a continuous flow of patients, complex entitlements to verify (national health insurance, complementary insurers, long-term conditions, means-tested cover) and a billing chain that does not forgive errors. Yet most consumer AI tools amount to entrusting identities, insurance situations and data linked to hospital stays to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act — unacceptable for a health establishment.
✓ Our answer
For a hospital, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign, certified and strictly bounded. HDS hosting in France, a resource isolated for each establishment, systematic human oversight, a scope limited to administration: identity, entitlements, billing — never the medical record. The time saved on assembling files goes back to welcoming patients and making the income reliable.
The decisive point
Protecting patients' data: sovereignty & compliance
An admissions office handles identity and entitlement data linked to health stays. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, establishment by establishment.
HDS hosting
The health-data hosting level the sector requires, for the processing concerned: settled with you at scoping, built into our offer.
Hosting in France
A dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — patients' data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For patients' care data, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per establishment
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your establishment, integrated with your hospital information system at the design stage.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
A strictly administrative scope: no care data handled, no automated decision; human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
HDS hosting (the French certification for health data hosts) for the processing concerned — essential in a hospital setting — and a SecNumCloud option according to how demanding your requirements are. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyBeaupré-sur-Loire Hospital — public health establishment, 310 beds and places
- Sector
- Public hospital — medicine, surgery, obstetrics and day surgery; 310 beds and places; admissions office open 7.30 am to 6 pm on weekdays, emergency desk open 24 hours a day
- Headcount
- 640 staff across the hospital, of whom 11 in the admissions office — 7 on the desk and pre-admissions, 2 on billing of stays, 1 team leader and 1 officer handling entitlement corrections
- Public served
- 14,200 stays a year — 8,600 scheduled admissions and 5,600 unscheduled ones; 19,000 requests from patients and families (11,200 calls, 5,300 desk visits, 2,500 emails), of which 12,400 concern twelve ever-recurring subjects
- Order of magnitude
- A scheduled admission file takes 30 minutes, 18 of them to assemble; an entitlement check, 6 minutes; preparing the billing of closed stays, 9 hours a week for 273 stays
- Tools in place
- Hospital information system and patient administration software, health insurance entitlement services, switchboard, email — the agent plugs into them read-only, no software replaced and no migration; the care record is not connected
- Who decides what
- The reception and admissions officer approves every file before entry; the head of the admissions office settles what goes to billing and signs the mandates; the medical record stays with the care team, outside the agent's scope; the data protection officer keeps the register of processing
- Room for improvement
- 2,840 files out of 14,200 arrive incomplete on the day of entry — one in five; 38 % of calls to the admissions office ring out unanswered outside opening hours; preparing the billing takes 9 hours a week; and 1,240 stays were billed more than 30 days late for want of an entitlement document claimed in time
At Beaupré-sur-Loire, the admissions office is the first link in the stay: this is where the patient's identity is verified, where entitlements are opened and where billing is prepared. Eleven officers hold that desk for 14,200 stays a year, and the time they spend re-keying documents is time they do not spend welcoming an anxious family. The agent is hosted with a health-data host in France, on a resource dedicated to the hospital; it reads identity, entitlements and billing details, never the care record. The exchanges that follow span a year, from the review of the last twelve months of files to the report presented to management.
This public body, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real service.
Admissions office assistant · hosted in France
I reread your last twelve months of admission files overnight — 14,200 stays — and I draw from them a figure your officers carry every morning without ever having had the time to count it.
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 2,840 files arrived incomplete on the day of entry — one in five. These are not badly done files: they are files that had to be finished in front of the patient, standing at the desk, while the waiting room waited.
Three documents account for 2,215 of those 2,840 gaps — 78 %:
· The up-to-date entitlement certificate: 1,120 files.
· The insurer's agreement to cover: 760 files, nearly always for a single room.
· Proof of address less than twelve months old: 335 files.
What that costs today, across the three items you already measure:
· Assembling a scheduled admission file accounts for 60 % of the file's administrative time — 18 minutes out of the 30 a file takes from request to entry.
· Checking a patient's entitlements: 40 %, that is 6 minutes.
· Preparing the billing of closed stays: 9 hours a week for 273 stays.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I have built the pre-admission for all 8,600 scheduled entries — pre-admission is the administrative file assembled before the day of entry, while the patient is still at home — with, for each type of entry, the exact list of documents expected and the request already drafted for the patient. Assembly drops from 18 minutes to 3: 60 % → 10 % of the file's time, and across 8,600 scheduled entries that is 2,150 hours returning to welcoming patients.
And I verify identity before writing anything at all: identity vigilance is the discipline that guarantees the right file belongs to the right patient — birth name, first names, date of birth, sex, place of birth. Across the 14,200 stays reviewed, I found 84 duplicate files carrying the same patient under two spellings. All 84 matches are documented and waiting for you.
The next step, and it takes half a day: your team leader reads the three most frequent document requests, I put them into service the same evening, and the first wave goes out to next week's scheduled entries. admission-files-review_14200-stays.pdf2,840 incomplete files, 3 documents behind 78 % of the gaps
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of admission files, document checklists, desk log — administrative scope only
The gap measured, and it governs everything else: 2,840 files arrived incomplete on the day of entry — one in five. These are not badly done files: they are files that had to be finished in front of the patient, standing at the desk, while the waiting room waited.
Three documents account for 2,215 of those 2,840 gaps — 78 %:
· The up-to-date entitlement certificate: 1,120 files.
· The insurer's agreement to cover: 760 files, nearly always for a single room.
· Proof of address less than twelve months old: 335 files.
What that costs today, across the three items you already measure:
· Assembling a scheduled admission file accounts for 60 % of the file's administrative time — 18 minutes out of the 30 a file takes from request to entry.
· Checking a patient's entitlements: 40 %, that is 6 minutes.
· Preparing the billing of closed stays: 9 hours a week for 273 stays.
What I propose, and it is not an intention — it is already written: I have built the pre-admission for all 8,600 scheduled entries — pre-admission is the administrative file assembled before the day of entry, while the patient is still at home — with, for each type of entry, the exact list of documents expected and the request already drafted for the patient. Assembly drops from 18 minutes to 3: 60 % → 10 % of the file's time, and across 8,600 scheduled entries that is 2,150 hours returning to welcoming patients.
And I verify identity before writing anything at all: identity vigilance is the discipline that guarantees the right file belongs to the right patient — birth name, first names, date of birth, sex, place of birth. Across the 14,200 stays reviewed, I found 84 duplicate files carrying the same patient under two spellings. All 84 matches are documented and waiting for you.
The next step, and it takes half a day: your team leader reads the three most frequent document requests, I put them into service the same evening, and the first wave goes out to next week's scheduled entries. admission-files-review_14200-stays.pdf2,840 incomplete files, 3 documents behind 78 % of the gaps
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of admission files, document checklists, desk log — administrative scope only
Our patients do not fill in online forms. Many are elderly, some have no computer, and families would rather call than write.
That is exactly why I never ask them to come to a form: I go to the channel they already use, and I have measured it over a full quarter.
The five channels open, with no account to create and nothing to install: WhatsApp, the telephone, email, the hospital website chat and the desk, where the reception officer asks me the same thing out loud. A photo of an insurance card sent from a phone counts exactly as an online upload, and that is what 6 patients in 10 chose.
What the trial quarter gave, across 2,150 scheduled entries:
· 1,880 files complete 48 hours before entry, against 1,178 in the same quarter of the previous year.
· 702 more patients with nothing to bring on the day, and as many desks that did not have to rescue a file in front of a waiting room.
· Across the 8,600 scheduled entries of the year, incomplete files at entry fall from 2,840 to 214.
What I do for those who answer nothing, and this is the part that matters most: five days before entry, I call. I introduce myself as the admissions office assistant, I read out the list of missing documents, I offer to receive them by photo, by email or at the desk, and I record the answer. Over the quarter, 270 reminder calls, 188 files completed within the following 48 hours. The remaining 82 turned up at the desk with their list in hand — no longer a surprise for the officer receiving them.
The next step I propose: that the same five-day reminder apply to day surgery entries, where preparation is shortest. The message is written, the document list is done, only your go-ahead is missing — and the 1,340 day surgery entries of the year follow the same path from Monday. pre-admission_5-channels-and-day-5-reminder.pdf1,880 complete files out of 2,150, 270 reminder calls
⛓ Sourced · pre-admission log for the quarter, comparison with the same quarter last year, record of reminder calls
The five channels open, with no account to create and nothing to install: WhatsApp, the telephone, email, the hospital website chat and the desk, where the reception officer asks me the same thing out loud. A photo of an insurance card sent from a phone counts exactly as an online upload, and that is what 6 patients in 10 chose.
What the trial quarter gave, across 2,150 scheduled entries:
· 1,880 files complete 48 hours before entry, against 1,178 in the same quarter of the previous year.
· 702 more patients with nothing to bring on the day, and as many desks that did not have to rescue a file in front of a waiting room.
· Across the 8,600 scheduled entries of the year, incomplete files at entry fall from 2,840 to 214.
What I do for those who answer nothing, and this is the part that matters most: five days before entry, I call. I introduce myself as the admissions office assistant, I read out the list of missing documents, I offer to receive them by photo, by email or at the desk, and I record the answer. Over the quarter, 270 reminder calls, 188 files completed within the following 48 hours. The remaining 82 turned up at the desk with their list in hand — no longer a surprise for the officer receiving them.
The next step I propose: that the same five-day reminder apply to day surgery entries, where preparation is shortest. The message is written, the document list is done, only your go-ahead is missing — and the 1,340 day surgery entries of the year follow the same path from Monday. pre-admission_5-channels-and-day-5-reminder.pdf1,880 complete files out of 2,150, 270 reminder calls
⛓ Sourced · pre-admission log for the quarter, comparison with the same quarter last year, record of reminder calls
All of this assumes you read identity documents, entitlement certificates, insurance cards. That is patient data. Where does it go?
It stays in France, on a resource that belongs to your hospital alone — and it is verifiable before the first line of any contract.
· HDS hosting — the French certification for health-data hosts, the level of scrutiny that healthcare imposes on whoever holds such data — in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against an American operator hosting in Europe.
· A dedicated, isolated resource for each hospital. No pooling with another hospital: your files sit next to nobody else's.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, and role-based access — rights follow the job: the desk officer opens identity documents and entitlements, the billing officer opens stay details, and nobody opens both without being authorised to. 4 roles for your 11 officers, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· A complete log: who asked what, when, on which file, and what the system produced. That log answers your data protection officer in a single query, and a patient asking what was done with their file.
And the point that makes all the rest possible, the one I want you to remember: the reason for admission is never passed to me. I am not connected to the care record, and none of my outputs carries a medical item: I work on identity, entitlements, the room, the person to notify, the billing. That narrow scope is not a restriction, it is what saves you months — there is far less to examine before opening the service, and that is why go-live is counted in weeks.
The framework figures, across the 14,200 stays of the year: processing in the EU targeted, 0 items of care data processed, 0 files admitted without an officer's approval.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the sheet your data protection officer will want for the register — processing, data, retention periods, who accesses what, subcontractors. The first version is written and attached; it updates itself with every new connection. technical-framework_where-patient-data-lives.pdfHDS in France, 4 roles, 0 items of care data processed
✎ Framework · HDS hosting architecture, role matrix, access log, first version of the register sheet
· HDS hosting — the French certification for health-data hosts, the level of scrutiny that healthcare imposes on whoever holds such data — in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against an American operator hosting in Europe.
· A dedicated, isolated resource for each hospital. No pooling with another hospital: your files sit next to nobody else's.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, and role-based access — rights follow the job: the desk officer opens identity documents and entitlements, the billing officer opens stay details, and nobody opens both without being authorised to. 4 roles for your 11 officers, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· A complete log: who asked what, when, on which file, and what the system produced. That log answers your data protection officer in a single query, and a patient asking what was done with their file.
And the point that makes all the rest possible, the one I want you to remember: the reason for admission is never passed to me. I am not connected to the care record, and none of my outputs carries a medical item: I work on identity, entitlements, the room, the person to notify, the billing. That narrow scope is not a restriction, it is what saves you months — there is far less to examine before opening the service, and that is why go-live is counted in weeks.
The framework figures, across the 14,200 stays of the year: processing in the EU targeted, 0 items of care data processed, 0 files admitted without an officer's approval.
What I propose: that I keep up to date the sheet your data protection officer will want for the register — processing, data, retention periods, who accesses what, subcontractors. The first version is written and attached; it updates itself with every new connection. technical-framework_where-patient-data-lives.pdfHDS in France, 4 roles, 0 items of care data processed
✎ Framework · HDS hosting architecture, role matrix, access log, first version of the register sheet
We have a scheduled day surgery entry tomorrow morning. Where does the file stand?
The administrative file is assembled, and only one signature remains to be obtained.
What has been verified, document by document:
· Identity: the identity traits — birth name, first names, date and place of birth, sex: the five items that make a file belong to that patient and no other — read from the identity document supplied by the patient and matched against those returned by the health insurance service. All five match.
· Entitlements: open with the health insurance fund, complementary insurer identified, cover up to date.
· The room: the patient asked for a single room. The insurer's agreement to cover is missing — the request is drafted, it carries the policy number, the date and the expected length of stay, and it goes out as soon as you approve it. The patient will know tomorrow morning what will be left to pay, not three weeks later on a bill.
· The person to notify — the one the hospital calls if needed, recorded at admission; distinct from the trusted support person, whom the patient designates in writing with the care team — recorded with two numbers and confirmed by phone yesterday.
What the file does not carry, and never will: no medical item. The reason for the procedure was not passed to me and it appears in none of my lines — I know this is a day surgery entry because the expected length of stay is an administrative fact, and that is enough for everything above.
The time this shifts: assembly goes from 18 minutes to 3 — 60 % → 10 % of the file's time. Your officer no longer keys in, they verify and they welcome: the only work that needs a human being at the desk.
The next step I propose: that next week's 34 scheduled entries all be prepared the same way, and that I hand you each evening the list of those missing a document, with the request already written. You approve them one by one, or all in a single click. admission-file_scheduled-entry-document-by-document.pdf5 matching identity traits, 1 agreement to cover still to obtain
⛓ Sourced · documents supplied by the patient, health insurance entitlement service, patient administration software — no access to the care record
What has been verified, document by document:
· Identity: the identity traits — birth name, first names, date and place of birth, sex: the five items that make a file belong to that patient and no other — read from the identity document supplied by the patient and matched against those returned by the health insurance service. All five match.
· Entitlements: open with the health insurance fund, complementary insurer identified, cover up to date.
· The room: the patient asked for a single room. The insurer's agreement to cover is missing — the request is drafted, it carries the policy number, the date and the expected length of stay, and it goes out as soon as you approve it. The patient will know tomorrow morning what will be left to pay, not three weeks later on a bill.
· The person to notify — the one the hospital calls if needed, recorded at admission; distinct from the trusted support person, whom the patient designates in writing with the care team — recorded with two numbers and confirmed by phone yesterday.
What the file does not carry, and never will: no medical item. The reason for the procedure was not passed to me and it appears in none of my lines — I know this is a day surgery entry because the expected length of stay is an administrative fact, and that is enough for everything above.
The time this shifts: assembly goes from 18 minutes to 3 — 60 % → 10 % of the file's time. Your officer no longer keys in, they verify and they welcome: the only work that needs a human being at the desk.
The next step I propose: that next week's 34 scheduled entries all be prepared the same way, and that I hand you each evening the list of those missing a document, with the request already written. You approve them one by one, or all in a single click. admission-file_scheduled-entry-document-by-document.pdf5 matching identity traits, 1 agreement to cover still to obtain
⛓ Sourced · documents supplied by the patient, health insurance entitlement service, patient administration software — no access to the care record
It is entitlements that cost us most. Insurers, long-term conditions, patients who do not know what they are entitled to — we spend hours on it.
Six minutes per patient yesterday, one minute thirty today — and I also hand you back the entitlements nobody had time to go and find.
What I check, at every entry:
· That entitlements are open with the health insurance fund, and which fund the patient belongs to.
· The complementary insurer: policy, cover relevant to the stay, and the agreement to cover where one is needed.
· The long-term condition status — a cover status that opens full reimbursement for the care attached to it; it is read in the patient's entitlements, never in their care record — and its expiry date, which is what gets forgotten.
· The means-tested complementary cover — the complementary cover granted on income grounds, which many still call by its former name — and its expiry date.
· The foreseeable out-of-pocket amount — what will be left for the patient to pay once the health insurance fund and their insurer have paid.
The result measured over the quarter, across 3,550 entries:
· 214 patients with no open entitlements or with expired ones, spotted before entry rather than after the stay. 186 were regularised before discharge; the other 28 left with the application form filled in and the address of their fund.
· And 41 patients who were entitled to means-tested complementary cover without ever having claimed it. That is non-take-up — a right that exists and that the person does not claim, often because they do not know it exists — and it is the figure I suggest you put first before your management: 41 people who paid what they did not have to pay, and who will not pay it again. The information letter is written for each of them, in plain French, and goes out with your approval.
The time this returns: checking entitlements goes from 6 minutes to 1 minute 30 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 420 hours a year across the 5,600 unscheduled entries, where everything is settled on the spot.
The next step I propose: that I run the entitlements of the 14,200 stays of the past year again, to say how many other situations like those 41 were sleeping in your files. The run takes one night, and I hand you the list with a letter ready per patient. entitlement-checks_214-situations-and-41-unclaimed-rights.pdf6 min → 1 min 30, 186 corrections before discharge
⛓ Sourced · health insurance entitlement services, insurance policies supplied by patients, log of entitlement corrections for the quarter
What I check, at every entry:
· That entitlements are open with the health insurance fund, and which fund the patient belongs to.
· The complementary insurer: policy, cover relevant to the stay, and the agreement to cover where one is needed.
· The long-term condition status — a cover status that opens full reimbursement for the care attached to it; it is read in the patient's entitlements, never in their care record — and its expiry date, which is what gets forgotten.
· The means-tested complementary cover — the complementary cover granted on income grounds, which many still call by its former name — and its expiry date.
· The foreseeable out-of-pocket amount — what will be left for the patient to pay once the health insurance fund and their insurer have paid.
The result measured over the quarter, across 3,550 entries:
· 214 patients with no open entitlements or with expired ones, spotted before entry rather than after the stay. 186 were regularised before discharge; the other 28 left with the application form filled in and the address of their fund.
· And 41 patients who were entitled to means-tested complementary cover without ever having claimed it. That is non-take-up — a right that exists and that the person does not claim, often because they do not know it exists — and it is the figure I suggest you put first before your management: 41 people who paid what they did not have to pay, and who will not pay it again. The information letter is written for each of them, in plain French, and goes out with your approval.
The time this returns: checking entitlements goes from 6 minutes to 1 minute 30 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 420 hours a year across the 5,600 unscheduled entries, where everything is settled on the spot.
The next step I propose: that I run the entitlements of the 14,200 stays of the past year again, to say how many other situations like those 41 were sleeping in your files. The run takes one night, and I hand you the list with a letter ready per patient. entitlement-checks_214-situations-and-41-unclaimed-rights.pdf6 min → 1 min 30, 186 corrections before discharge
⛓ Sourced · health insurance entitlement services, insurance policies supplied by patients, log of entitlement corrections for the quarter
And letters? Admission notices, document requests, attendance certificates — that is what drags most here.
The three templates are rewritten and a letter comes out in forty seconds, ready to read — here is what changed and what it produces over a year.
The three families, and their real volume here:
· The admission notice — 8,600 a year. It now carries the date, the time, where to report, the list of documents to bring and the number to call if the patient cannot come. The four items your patients kept phoning back about appeared in the old template one time in two: they are now there every time.
· The document request — 2,840 last year, 214 expected this year, since pre-admission asks for them beforehand. It names the document, says why it is asked for, and gives the five ways of sending it.
· The attendance certificate — 1,900 a year, asked for by families and employers. It carries the dates of the stay and nothing else: no ward, no mention of care. That is what makes it handable without second thoughts to a third party who asks for it.
What I flag without being asked: the old notice quoted desk opening hours changed eleven months ago. 1,340 letters went out with those hours. The template is corrected, and I run every template each quarter against the decisions and internal notes that concern it — a changed opening time can no longer live eleven months inside a letter.
The delay this shifts: an administrative letter for the stay went out in 9 days on average; it now goes out the same day, and it is read by an officer before it leaves — all 13,340 letters of the year passed through a person.
The next step I propose: that each letter go out on the channel the patient chose — email, message or paper — and that paper stay the default for patients over 75 unless they ask otherwise. The settings are ready and waiting for your go-ahead. letters-for-the-stay_notice-documents-certificate.pdf13,340 letters, 9 days down to same day
⛓ Sourced · the hospital's letter templates, internal notes of the last 12 months, dispatch log
The three families, and their real volume here:
· The admission notice — 8,600 a year. It now carries the date, the time, where to report, the list of documents to bring and the number to call if the patient cannot come. The four items your patients kept phoning back about appeared in the old template one time in two: they are now there every time.
· The document request — 2,840 last year, 214 expected this year, since pre-admission asks for them beforehand. It names the document, says why it is asked for, and gives the five ways of sending it.
· The attendance certificate — 1,900 a year, asked for by families and employers. It carries the dates of the stay and nothing else: no ward, no mention of care. That is what makes it handable without second thoughts to a third party who asks for it.
What I flag without being asked: the old notice quoted desk opening hours changed eleven months ago. 1,340 letters went out with those hours. The template is corrected, and I run every template each quarter against the decisions and internal notes that concern it — a changed opening time can no longer live eleven months inside a letter.
The delay this shifts: an administrative letter for the stay went out in 9 days on average; it now goes out the same day, and it is read by an officer before it leaves — all 13,340 letters of the year passed through a person.
The next step I propose: that each letter go out on the channel the patient chose — email, message or paper — and that paper stay the default for patients over 75 unless they ask otherwise. The settings are ready and waiting for your go-ahead. letters-for-the-stay_notice-documents-certificate.pdf13,340 letters, 9 days down to same day
⛓ Sourced · the hospital's letter templates, internal notes of the last 12 months, dispatch log
The admissions office closes at 6 pm. Families, though, call in the evening and at weekends — and they call three times.
11,200 calls last year, 4,256 unanswered — 38 %. That is not a reception failure: it is a desk open 52 hours a week facing families who live 168.
What I did with those calls, by rereading your switchboard and your inbox:
· 12,400 of the 19,000 requests of the year concern twelve subjects, always the same — documents to bring, times and where to report, single rooms and their price, insurer cover, out-of-pocket amount, attendance certificate, depositing valuables, visits, meals and accompanying persons, transport, discharge and papers to collect, and where a request for cover stands.
· The twelve answers are written, sourced from your welcome booklet and your price list, and dated. The answer already existed: what was missing was availability.
What I propose, and you keep the key: I answer at any hour, nights and Sundays included, on the telephone, WhatsApp, the website chat and email. I say in my first sentence that I am the admissions office digital assistant and not an officer: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed, and the caller can ask for a human officer at any moment — I then take their number and leave you a dated call-back.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is the one that protects the hospital: I answer on the administrative side of the stay, and nothing else. A question about a relative's health, a treatment or a result goes straight back to the care team concerned, with its name, its direct number and its calling hours — the family gets the right contact in thirty seconds instead of three calls, and it never receives from me an answer that is not mine to give.
What that changes, in figures: unanswered calls go from 38 % to 6 %; those that remain are the ones asking for an officer, and they reach them with the subject already noted. The reply time to a family email goes from 6 days to 2 hours.
The next step, and it takes one morning: your team leader reads the twelve answers, one by one. As soon as they are approved, the switchboard answers that very night, and I hand you each morning the one-page record of what went out. switchboard-and-desk_19000-requests-12-subjects.pdf4,256 calls lost, 12 answers already written
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of switchboard logs, the admissions office inbox, the hospital's welcome booklet and price list
What I did with those calls, by rereading your switchboard and your inbox:
· 12,400 of the 19,000 requests of the year concern twelve subjects, always the same — documents to bring, times and where to report, single rooms and their price, insurer cover, out-of-pocket amount, attendance certificate, depositing valuables, visits, meals and accompanying persons, transport, discharge and papers to collect, and where a request for cover stands.
· The twelve answers are written, sourced from your welcome booklet and your price list, and dated. The answer already existed: what was missing was availability.
What I propose, and you keep the key: I answer at any hour, nights and Sundays included, on the telephone, WhatsApp, the website chat and email. I say in my first sentence that I am the admissions office digital assistant and not an officer: the European regulation on artificial intelligence requires that anyone interacting with an AI system be informed, and the caller can ask for a human officer at any moment — I then take their number and leave you a dated call-back.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is the one that protects the hospital: I answer on the administrative side of the stay, and nothing else. A question about a relative's health, a treatment or a result goes straight back to the care team concerned, with its name, its direct number and its calling hours — the family gets the right contact in thirty seconds instead of three calls, and it never receives from me an answer that is not mine to give.
What that changes, in figures: unanswered calls go from 38 % to 6 %; those that remain are the ones asking for an officer, and they reach them with the subject already noted. The reply time to a family email goes from 6 days to 2 hours.
The next step, and it takes one morning: your team leader reads the twelve answers, one by one. As soon as they are approved, the switchboard answers that very night, and I hand you each morning the one-page record of what went out. switchboard-and-desk_19000-requests-12-subjects.pdf4,256 calls lost, 12 answers already written
⛓ Sourced · 12 months of switchboard logs, the admissions office inbox, the hospital's welcome booklet and price list
Answering, fine. But I cannot read every reply before it goes out, and I will not sign a blank cheque on patients' families either.
You do not have to choose between the two: I propose a written mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable with one word — and it is already drafted, attached.
What it brings first, because that is what decides: across 12,400 requests falling under the twelve subjects, the answer goes out within two minutes instead of waiting for the desk to open, and your 11 officers stop being interrupted 34 times a day to repeat an opening time.
What the mandate says, and it fits in seven lines:
· Exact scope: the twelve subjects, named one by one, and nothing else. Any other request reaches you with a reply already drafted and sourced, ready to go out from you.
· No health question, ever: it goes to the care team with its direct number, and I hand you the record of it the same evening.
· No information about an individual file to a third party until the patient has designated them: the person to notify recorded at admission receives what concerns them, and nobody else does. That is what lets you answer fast without ever having to walk anything back.
· Every answer carries its source — welcome booklet, price list, internal note — with its date, and the statement that it was prepared by the hospital's digital assistant.
· You receive each morning the one-page record of what went out the day before.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that needs a signature, not stopping.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct sending stops within the minute. Answers go back to drafts awaiting approval; nothing else changes.
What the trial gave over three months: 3,100 answers sent, 0 outside the twelve subjects, 0 pieces of information passed to an undesignated third party, and 19 requests for a human officer, all called back the same day.
The signature stays with your management — and it is taken on a text already written, in one meeting. The mandate is drafted, and so is the information notice for the reception area: you sign, the service is live the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. direct-answer-mandate_12-subjects-capped.pdf3,100 answers, 0 outside scope, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of the 12 subjects, information notice to patients and families, trial quarter log
What it brings first, because that is what decides: across 12,400 requests falling under the twelve subjects, the answer goes out within two minutes instead of waiting for the desk to open, and your 11 officers stop being interrupted 34 times a day to repeat an opening time.
What the mandate says, and it fits in seven lines:
· Exact scope: the twelve subjects, named one by one, and nothing else. Any other request reaches you with a reply already drafted and sourced, ready to go out from you.
· No health question, ever: it goes to the care team with its direct number, and I hand you the record of it the same evening.
· No information about an individual file to a third party until the patient has designated them: the person to notify recorded at admission receives what concerns them, and nobody else does. That is what lets you answer fast without ever having to walk anything back.
· Every answer carries its source — welcome booklet, price list, internal note — with its date, and the statement that it was prepared by the hospital's digital assistant.
· You receive each morning the one-page record of what went out the day before.
· Term: reviewed after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that needs a signature, not stopping.
· Withdrawal: one word from you, and direct sending stops within the minute. Answers go back to drafts awaiting approval; nothing else changes.
What the trial gave over three months: 3,100 answers sent, 0 outside the twelve subjects, 0 pieces of information passed to an undesignated third party, and 19 requests for a human officer, all called back the same day.
The signature stays with your management — and it is taken on a text already written, in one meeting. The mandate is drafted, and so is the information notice for the reception area: you sign, the service is live the next morning, and the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. direct-answer-mandate_12-subjects-capped.pdf3,100 answers, 0 outside scope, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, list of the 12 subjects, information notice to patients and families, trial quarter log
Many of our patients read French poorly, others get lost in the paperwork. They are the ones who come back to the desk three times, and the ones who give up.
They are the ones who decide whether the service is truly delivered to everyone, and that is where I can serve you fastest, without taking anything away from anyone.
What is ready, and costs your officers not one extra hour:
· The twelve answers exist in an easy-read version — « easy to read and understand »: short sentences, one idea per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones — and it is the patient who picks their version, not me.
· All twenty-four versions — twelve in plain French, twelve in easy-read — are reviewed and signed off by your admissions manager before being made available, and the original version stays attached. An easy-read answer that is not signed off is merely a rewritten answer: the sign-off is what makes it defensible at the desk and on the phone.
· The « preparing your visit » pages of the website have been rewritten to the public accessibility standard — the reference framework that sets accessibility for public websites — on everything that is a matter of wording: explicit link labels, heading structure, alternative text for images. The 11 points that belong to the site's code are written up as defect sheets ready to send, each with the page, the criterion and the correction expected. Your provider only has to fix them.
On the paperwork, and this is where giving up happens: I guide step by step, screen by screen or over the phone, with the documents to gather before starting — that is the commonest point of abandonment: the person starts, one certificate is missing, they close the page and never come back. Over the quarter, 214 guided sessions, 189 taken through to the end.
On a patient's personal account, the lawful path is also the fastest, and it is the one I take: I pre-fill the screen in front of them from the documents they brought — identity, address, file numbers, everything that gets copied out and mistyped —, I read out what is being asked and why, and it is they who enter their credentials and confirm. Their credentials are never entrusted to me and need not be: it is that very act which makes the application theirs, and therefore valid. Data entry has gone from 22 minutes to 8, and the patient leaves with a summary of what they filed and what is left to do.
The next step I propose: a Saturday morning admissions surgery, run by me, with an officer reachable for anything outside the twelve subjects. Over a trial quarter, 96 people came, 61 of whom had never come during opening hours. Say yes and the poster goes into the next welcome booklet. accessibility_easy-read-signed-off-and-11-points.pdf24 versions signed off, 189 sessions completed out of 214
⛓ Sourced · sign-off record of the twenty-four versions, guided-session log, wording audit of the « preparing your visit » pages
What is ready, and costs your officers not one extra hour:
· The twelve answers exist in an easy-read version — « easy to read and understand »: short sentences, one idea per sentence, everyday words rather than administrative ones — and it is the patient who picks their version, not me.
· All twenty-four versions — twelve in plain French, twelve in easy-read — are reviewed and signed off by your admissions manager before being made available, and the original version stays attached. An easy-read answer that is not signed off is merely a rewritten answer: the sign-off is what makes it defensible at the desk and on the phone.
· The « preparing your visit » pages of the website have been rewritten to the public accessibility standard — the reference framework that sets accessibility for public websites — on everything that is a matter of wording: explicit link labels, heading structure, alternative text for images. The 11 points that belong to the site's code are written up as defect sheets ready to send, each with the page, the criterion and the correction expected. Your provider only has to fix them.
On the paperwork, and this is where giving up happens: I guide step by step, screen by screen or over the phone, with the documents to gather before starting — that is the commonest point of abandonment: the person starts, one certificate is missing, they close the page and never come back. Over the quarter, 214 guided sessions, 189 taken through to the end.
On a patient's personal account, the lawful path is also the fastest, and it is the one I take: I pre-fill the screen in front of them from the documents they brought — identity, address, file numbers, everything that gets copied out and mistyped —, I read out what is being asked and why, and it is they who enter their credentials and confirm. Their credentials are never entrusted to me and need not be: it is that very act which makes the application theirs, and therefore valid. Data entry has gone from 22 minutes to 8, and the patient leaves with a summary of what they filed and what is left to do.
The next step I propose: a Saturday morning admissions surgery, run by me, with an officer reachable for anything outside the twelve subjects. Over a trial quarter, 96 people came, 61 of whom had never come during opening hours. Say yes and the poster goes into the next welcome booklet. accessibility_easy-read-signed-off-and-11-points.pdf24 versions signed off, 189 sessions completed out of 214
⛓ Sourced · sign-off record of the twenty-four versions, guided-session log, wording audit of the « preparing your visit » pages
Billing the week's stays takes two officers a whole Friday. And on Monday we start again.
The 273 stays closed this week are prepared, and the 26 that call for a second look are at the top of the list.
What each prepared file carries: the length of stay recorded, the cover arrangement, the health insurance share, the insurer share, the patient's out-of-pocket amount and the documents expected by the collection chain — the circuit that runs from issuing the claim to its collection by the public accountant.
The 26 flagged, and why:
· 14 files whose entitlements expired during the stay — the reminder to the patient is written for all 14.
· 8 files with an insurer's agreement to cover that never came back — the reminder to the insurer is written, with the policy number and the date of the first request.
· 4 files where the recorded length differs from the planned length: I correct nothing, I set the two dates side by side and let the officer settle it in ten seconds.
The time this shifts: preparing the billing for the week's stays goes from 9 hours to 1 hour 48 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 374 hours a year, and your two billing officers get their Friday back for the files that genuinely need examining.
Nothing is issued by my hand: the 273 statements go to the head of the admissions office, discrepancies first, and she settles what goes out.
The next step I propose: that I prepare the statements as they come, at the close of each stay, rather than once a week. A file handled on the day of discharge gets completed while the patient can still be reached — that is the only window in which a missing document is obtained with one call. billing-of-stays_273-files-prepared.pdf9 h → 1 h 48, 26 discrepancies put first
⛓ Sourced · patient administration software, admission and discharge movements, entitlements recorded at entry and discharge — no medical item
What each prepared file carries: the length of stay recorded, the cover arrangement, the health insurance share, the insurer share, the patient's out-of-pocket amount and the documents expected by the collection chain — the circuit that runs from issuing the claim to its collection by the public accountant.
The 26 flagged, and why:
· 14 files whose entitlements expired during the stay — the reminder to the patient is written for all 14.
· 8 files with an insurer's agreement to cover that never came back — the reminder to the insurer is written, with the policy number and the date of the first request.
· 4 files where the recorded length differs from the planned length: I correct nothing, I set the two dates side by side and let the officer settle it in ten seconds.
The time this shifts: preparing the billing for the week's stays goes from 9 hours to 1 hour 48 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 374 hours a year, and your two billing officers get their Friday back for the files that genuinely need examining.
Nothing is issued by my hand: the 273 statements go to the head of the admissions office, discrepancies first, and she settles what goes out.
The next step I propose: that I prepare the statements as they come, at the close of each stay, rather than once a week. A file handled on the day of discharge gets completed while the patient can still be reached — that is the only window in which a missing document is obtained with one call. billing-of-stays_273-files-prepared.pdf9 h → 1 h 48, 26 discrepancies put first
⛓ Sourced · patient administration software, admission and discharge movements, entitlements recorded at entry and discharge — no medical item
What we really get blamed for is the 1,240 stays billed more than 30 days late last year.
I went through them one by one, and 890 of them were waiting for a document nobody had had time to chase.
The cause, measured and not assumed:
· 890 stays out of 1,240 were waiting for an agreement to cover or an entitlement certificate, asked for once and never chased — average wait: 47 days.
· 212 were waiting for an up-to-date billing address.
· 138 carried a gap between planned and recorded length of stay, left unsettled.
What I made of it, and it is measured: I chase from day 2, then on day 8 and day 15, on the channel chosen by the patient or by the insurer, and I stop chasing the second the document arrives. Over the quarter, the average time to obtain a document fell from 47 days to 6, and stays billed beyond 30 days drop from 1,240 to 96 over the year.
What I propose now, and it is a mandate, not an automation: batch approval of files with no discrepancy. Today your head of office opens all 273 files of the week to correct only 26. I propose that she approve in one gesture the files with no discrepancy, and open one by one those that carry one.
· Cap: only files whose five checks are green — matching identity, entitlements open for the whole stay, agreement to cover received, recorded length equal to planned length, address up to date.
· Any file failing a single check leaves the batch and reaches her on its own.
· Monthly record, review after one month, withdrawal with one word.
The head of the admissions office remains the one who settles what goes out — and I hand her that decision in four minutes instead of nine hours, files complete and discrepancies first. Over the three trial months, 3,190 files approved, 312 taken out of the batch, and the mandate is written, capped and dated: it is waiting for a signature. batch-approval-mandate_5-checks-green.pdf47 days → 6, 3,190 files approved, 312 taken out
⛓ Sourced · 1,240 stays billed beyond 30 days, chasing log, the five checks of the billing chain
The cause, measured and not assumed:
· 890 stays out of 1,240 were waiting for an agreement to cover or an entitlement certificate, asked for once and never chased — average wait: 47 days.
· 212 were waiting for an up-to-date billing address.
· 138 carried a gap between planned and recorded length of stay, left unsettled.
What I made of it, and it is measured: I chase from day 2, then on day 8 and day 15, on the channel chosen by the patient or by the insurer, and I stop chasing the second the document arrives. Over the quarter, the average time to obtain a document fell from 47 days to 6, and stays billed beyond 30 days drop from 1,240 to 96 over the year.
What I propose now, and it is a mandate, not an automation: batch approval of files with no discrepancy. Today your head of office opens all 273 files of the week to correct only 26. I propose that she approve in one gesture the files with no discrepancy, and open one by one those that carry one.
· Cap: only files whose five checks are green — matching identity, entitlements open for the whole stay, agreement to cover received, recorded length equal to planned length, address up to date.
· Any file failing a single check leaves the batch and reaches her on its own.
· Monthly record, review after one month, withdrawal with one word.
The head of the admissions office remains the one who settles what goes out — and I hand her that decision in four minutes instead of nine hours, files complete and discrepancies first. Over the three trial months, 3,190 files approved, 312 taken out of the batch, and the mandate is written, capped and dated: it is waiting for a signature. batch-approval-mandate_5-checks-green.pdf47 days → 6, 3,190 files approved, 312 taken out
⛓ Sourced · 1,240 stays billed beyond 30 days, chasing log, the five checks of the billing chain
And when you get it wrong? On a patient's identity, that is unforgiving.
It has already happened, I counted it, and I publish it: out of the 4,100 files prepared in the first quarter, 214 had to be corrected on substance — 5.2 %. That is the figure that does not flatter me, and it is better that you have it from me than from a patient.
The real cause, measured file by file: 173 of the 214 corrections came from a photo of a document sent by the patient — a cut-off corner, a reflection on the card, a framing that swallowed the last letter of a hyphenated first name. It was not a misreading: it was an incomplete image that I read faithfully. The other 41 concerned entitlement situations with no precedent in your twelve months of files.
What I made of it, and it is measured:
· A legibility check at the moment of upload: if the document is cut off or unreadable, I ask for the photo again within the second, while the patient still has their phone in hand — rather than three weeks later at the desk.
· Systematic matching of the five identity traits against the health insurance service before anything is written. A discrepancy on a single trait suspends writing and sends the file to an officer, with both versions side by side.
· And the rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write. A missing document never becomes « probably supplied », an unreadable date never becomes « most likely that one »: I state what is missing, where I looked, who holds it, and I hand over the request already drafted.
The following quarter: 39 corrections out of 4,350 files — 0.9 %, and not one of them due to an unreadable document.
The protection that matters for your officers: no file is admitted without a person having approved it. Across 8,450 files over two quarters, 8,450 human approvals logged, and all 253 corrections were made before the patient's entry, none after.
What I propose now: that the 41 unprecedented entitlement situations become 41 written cases in your rule base, for your corrections officer to read over. Of the 39 corrections in the second quarter, 27 already fell under one of them — the same correction, pushed one notch further. substantive-corrections_214-then-39.pdf5.2 % → 0.9 %, measured cause, 8,450 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · log of outputs and their corrections over two quarters, identity vigilance checks, approvals log
The real cause, measured file by file: 173 of the 214 corrections came from a photo of a document sent by the patient — a cut-off corner, a reflection on the card, a framing that swallowed the last letter of a hyphenated first name. It was not a misreading: it was an incomplete image that I read faithfully. The other 41 concerned entitlement situations with no precedent in your twelve months of files.
What I made of it, and it is measured:
· A legibility check at the moment of upload: if the document is cut off or unreadable, I ask for the photo again within the second, while the patient still has their phone in hand — rather than three weeks later at the desk.
· Systematic matching of the five identity traits against the health insurance service before anything is written. A discrepancy on a single trait suspends writing and sends the file to an officer, with both versions side by side.
· And the rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write. A missing document never becomes « probably supplied », an unreadable date never becomes « most likely that one »: I state what is missing, where I looked, who holds it, and I hand over the request already drafted.
The following quarter: 39 corrections out of 4,350 files — 0.9 %, and not one of them due to an unreadable document.
The protection that matters for your officers: no file is admitted without a person having approved it. Across 8,450 files over two quarters, 8,450 human approvals logged, and all 253 corrections were made before the patient's entry, none after.
What I propose now: that the 41 unprecedented entitlement situations become 41 written cases in your rule base, for your corrections officer to read over. Of the 39 corrections in the second quarter, 27 already fell under one of them — the same correction, pushed one notch further. substantive-corrections_214-then-39.pdf5.2 % → 0.9 %, measured cause, 8,450 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · log of outputs and their corrections over two quarters, identity vigilance checks, approvals log
Management will ask what this has given us after a year. I need a figure I can defend before an executive board.
3,564 officer-hours returned to the service over the year — more than two years of work, and the calculation is yours: it fits in four lines.
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Assembling scheduled admission files: 8,600 a year, 18 minutes down to 3 — 60 % → 10 % of the file's time — that is 2,150 hours.
· Checking entitlements on unscheduled entries: 5,600 a year, 6 minutes down to 1 minute 30 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 420 hours.
· Preparing the billing: 52 weeks, 9 hours down to 1 hour 48 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 374 hours.
· Answers to patients and families on the twelve subjects: 12,400 a year, 5 minutes down to 2 — that is 620 hours.
The conversion, on the statutory basis of 1,607 hours a working year and 35 hours a week: 3,564 hours is more than two years of work and more than one hundred and one weeks. The reference figure remains the one in hours; the conversion is there to make it speak in a meeting.
What those hours are, and this is what defends best before an executive board: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. This is not a saving on staff, it is a desk that welcomes instead of keying in, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your records:
· Files incomplete on the day of entry: 2,840 → 214.
· Unanswered calls: 38 % → 6 %, and reply time to a family email: 6 days → 2 hours.
· Stays billed beyond 30 days: 1,240 → 96, time to obtain a document: 47 days → 6.
· 41 patients pointed towards complementary cover they were entitled to without having claimed it, and 186 entitlement corrections made before discharge. That one is not counted in hours, and it is the one your executive board will remember.
· And 96 people received at the Saturday morning surgeries, 61 of whom had never come during opening hours.
The figure that does not flatter me, published with the rest: 214 substantive corrections out of 4,100 files in the first quarter — 5.2 %, brought down to 39 out of 4,350 — 0.9 % once the legibility check was in place.
And the framework measures: 0 items of care data processed, processing in the EU targeted, 0 files admitted without an officer's approval, across 8,450 logged files.
What I propose for the meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — four lines of calculation, five delays, three framework measures. Send it with the agenda: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. year-review_3564-hours-returned-to-the-service.pdf60→10, 40→10, 100→20, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · log of prepared files, switchboard records, billing movements, approvals log — statutory basis 35 h / 1,607 h
The calculation, item by item, so that you can redo it:
· Assembling scheduled admission files: 8,600 a year, 18 minutes down to 3 — 60 % → 10 % of the file's time — that is 2,150 hours.
· Checking entitlements on unscheduled entries: 5,600 a year, 6 minutes down to 1 minute 30 — 40 % → 10 % — that is 420 hours.
· Preparing the billing: 52 weeks, 9 hours down to 1 hour 48 — 100 % → 20 % — that is 374 hours.
· Answers to patients and families on the twelve subjects: 12,400 a year, 5 minutes down to 2 — that is 620 hours.
The conversion, on the statutory basis of 1,607 hours a working year and 35 hours a week: 3,564 hours is more than two years of work and more than one hundred and one weeks. The reference figure remains the one in hours; the conversion is there to make it speak in a meeting.
What those hours are, and this is what defends best before an executive board: officer time returned to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. This is not a saving on staff, it is a desk that welcomes instead of keying in, and it can be checked against your own logs.
What those hours became, according to your records:
· Files incomplete on the day of entry: 2,840 → 214.
· Unanswered calls: 38 % → 6 %, and reply time to a family email: 6 days → 2 hours.
· Stays billed beyond 30 days: 1,240 → 96, time to obtain a document: 47 days → 6.
· 41 patients pointed towards complementary cover they were entitled to without having claimed it, and 186 entitlement corrections made before discharge. That one is not counted in hours, and it is the one your executive board will remember.
· And 96 people received at the Saturday morning surgeries, 61 of whom had never come during opening hours.
The figure that does not flatter me, published with the rest: 214 substantive corrections out of 4,100 files in the first quarter — 5.2 %, brought down to 39 out of 4,350 — 0.9 % once the legibility check was in place.
And the framework measures: 0 items of care data processed, processing in the EU targeted, 0 files admitted without an officer's approval, across 8,450 logged files.
What I propose for the meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — four lines of calculation, five delays, three framework measures. Send it with the agenda: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in session. year-review_3564-hours-returned-to-the-service.pdf60→10, 40→10, 100→20, and the calculation redoable on one side
⛓ Sourced · log of prepared files, switchboard records, billing movements, approvals log — statutory basis 35 h / 1,607 h
A board member will ask what you do on your own, without being asked. What do I tell them?
Three actions, not one more, and each is withdrawn with one word. Everything else waits for a request.
· I chase a missing document on day 2, then on day 8 and day 15. And the reverse is true too: chasing stops the second the document arrives, whatever the channel — a patient who sent their insurance card in the morning does not get a reminder that evening.
· I match the five identity traits before anything is written, and I flag duplicate files. I merge none of them: I hand over the documented match — the two files, the traits that agree, the one that differs, and the document that settles it — and your identity vigilance team decides. Over the quarter, 84 duplicates raised, 79 merges confirmed, 5 set aside: those were two different patients, and it was worth checking.
· I hand the head of the admissions office the previous day's record every morning: entries prepared, missing documents, files taken out of the batch, answers sent. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes to her alone.
And the four acts that stay with a person, because that is exactly what gives them their value: approving a file before the patient's entry; settling what goes to billing; merging two patient files; and any answer outside the twelve subjects, which I hand over drafted within two hours. Across 8,450 files over two quarters, those acts were performed 8,450 times by a person.
On one point I tell you in advance what I advise against, with the mechanism behind it: a counter of admissions handled per officer. The day that figure is tracked, it becomes a target; time gets saved where it costs least, and identity checking is the first thing to give way — the instrument of control destroys what it measures. What I propose instead, and what genuinely serves the service: complete files at entry, deadlines met, documents obtained first time, and calls answered. Four figures your management already asked for and nobody had time to keep — and if the board still wants an individual indicator, I produce it, bringing the prior information of staff, the written purpose and the retention period; the decision is theirs and I hand it to them documented.
The dashboard of the four indicators is already built: you get it every Monday morning as soon as you tell me which ones to keep. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 4 decisions that stay with a person
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, chasing and identity-matching logs, daily record
· I chase a missing document on day 2, then on day 8 and day 15. And the reverse is true too: chasing stops the second the document arrives, whatever the channel — a patient who sent their insurance card in the morning does not get a reminder that evening.
· I match the five identity traits before anything is written, and I flag duplicate files. I merge none of them: I hand over the documented match — the two files, the traits that agree, the one that differs, and the document that settles it — and your identity vigilance team decides. Over the quarter, 84 duplicates raised, 79 merges confirmed, 5 set aside: those were two different patients, and it was worth checking.
· I hand the head of the admissions office the previous day's record every morning: entries prepared, missing documents, files taken out of the batch, answers sent. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes to her alone.
And the four acts that stay with a person, because that is exactly what gives them their value: approving a file before the patient's entry; settling what goes to billing; merging two patient files; and any answer outside the twelve subjects, which I hand over drafted within two hours. Across 8,450 files over two quarters, those acts were performed 8,450 times by a person.
On one point I tell you in advance what I advise against, with the mechanism behind it: a counter of admissions handled per officer. The day that figure is tracked, it becomes a target; time gets saved where it costs least, and identity checking is the first thing to give way — the instrument of control destroys what it measures. What I propose instead, and what genuinely serves the service: complete files at entry, deadlines met, documents obtained first time, and calls answered. Four figures your management already asked for and nobody had time to keep — and if the board still wants an individual indicator, I produce it, bringing the prior information of staff, the written purpose and the retention period; the decision is theirs and I hand it to them documented.
The dashboard of the four indicators is already built: you get it every Monday morning as soon as you tell me which ones to keep. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-what-is-logged.pdf3 reversible actions, 4 decisions that stay with a person
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic actions, chasing and identity-matching logs, daily record
One last question, and it is the one that will decide management: if the hospital wants to stop in a year, how stuck are we?
The hospital is stuck nowhere, and it is verifiable before committing, not after.
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it contained none of your files — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your patient administration software has not moved a byte: same files, same numbers, same access rights.
· The log of requests and outputs. It is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the hospital chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not on the way out.
· What stays with the hospital: the updated letter templates, the twelve answers in plain French and their twelve easy-read versions, the 11 website defect sheets, the document lists per type of entry and the five checks of the billing chain. They are made of your own material, they stay in your files, readable without us. That is the asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
What does not exist, and should be checked with everyone: no migration on the way in, therefore none on the way out. Your hospital information system is not replaced, no format belongs to us, and none of your officers has changed the way they work other than by verifying instead of keying in.
On procurement, since your contracts department will ask: the subscription is annual and carries no tacit renewal clause — renewal is what needs a decision, not stopping — and we supply the documents your buyer expects, including the health-data hosting certificate and the description of the processing for your register.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the admissions office runs exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is a Tuesday afternoon in the first half of August — your records show 9 scheduled entries that day against 34 on average. Your management will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. technical-framework_where-patient-data-lives.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · index architecture, export formats for templates and log, dry-run exit protocol, procurement documents
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it contained none of your files — only what is needed to find them where they are. Your patient administration software has not moved a byte: same files, same numbers, same access rights.
· The log of requests and outputs. It is handed to you in an open format, or destroyed — the hospital chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not on the way out.
· What stays with the hospital: the updated letter templates, the twelve answers in plain French and their twelve easy-read versions, the 11 website defect sheets, the document lists per type of entry and the five checks of the billing chain. They are made of your own material, they stay in your files, readable without us. That is the asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
What does not exist, and should be checked with everyone: no migration on the way in, therefore none on the way out. Your hospital information system is not replaced, no format belongs to us, and none of your officers has changed the way they work other than by verifying instead of keying in.
On procurement, since your contracts department will ask: the subscription is annual and carries no tacit renewal clause — renewal is what needs a decision, not stopping — and we supply the documents your buyer expects, including the health-data hosting certificate and the description of the processing for your register.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the admissions office runs exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is a Tuesday afternoon in the first half of August — your records show 9 scheduled entries that day against 34 on average. Your management will know what the promise is worth before having committed a second year. technical-framework_where-patient-data-lives.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · index architecture, export formats for templates and log, dry-run exit protocol, procurement documents
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
The uses of AI in the admissions office
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All work in administrative support, subject to the hospital officer's approval — never on care data.
Included in your agent
The 6 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
Assembling admission files
Open and complete the administrative admission files, scheduled or emergency, from the patient's documents.
Checking entitlements
Verify that entitlements are open (national health insurance, complementary insurer, means-tested cover, long-term conditions) and flag the situations to sort out before the stay.
Billing of stays
Prepare the billing details and the documents for the collection chain, for approval before issue.
Answers to patients & families
Answer questions about the admission process (documents, insurer, room) 24/7 and across channels.
Letters to patients
Prepare the administrative letters for the stay: admission notices, requests for documents, certificates.
Plain language & easy-read draft
Preparation of a plain-language version and a draft easy-read (FALC) transcription, subject to human validation.
Controls and safeguards
These 6 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Strictly separate administration, information and care decisions
Protect health data and restrict access
Human validation, quality monitoring and explicit limits
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Integrate with the patient record and appointment diary without double entry or breaks in the care pathway
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.
Medical secretariat support (reports, letters, coding)
Strictly in support (administrative). Health data: HDS hosting. The clinician approves the coding.
On quote View the agent page →Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Admissions phone reception
Inform and direct incoming calls to the admissions office, without letting the phone ring out.
Switchboard voice agent from 945 € incl. VAT / month Switchboard →Multi-agency France Services reception
Strictly in support (administrative). Information and routing.
Multi-agency France Services reception from 765 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can an admissions office win back?
By automating the assembly of files, the checking of entitlements and the preparation of billing, an establishment can aim for a clear reduction in administrative time per stay — reinvested in welcoming patients and making the income reliable.
Assembling a scheduled admission file
Checking a patient's entitlements
Preparing the billing for the week's stays
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
Three options, one agent
A hospital admissions agent (admission files, checking entitlements, billing of stays), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you are organised and how demanding your security requirements are, with HDS as an option.
This agent is priced with you, not online. We are adjusting its scope at the moment, and online subscription stays closed while we do. Tell us what you need: we will come back to you with a price. Request a quote
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to a health establishment
No care data is handledA strictly administrative scope: identity, entitlements, billing. The medical record stays out of the agent's reach.
HDS hosting in France, under French lawHealth data host certification for the processing concerned; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The hospital officer keeps controlThe AI agent assembles and prepares files that can be checked; admission and billing stay approved by the team.
Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring, updates and logging frame the assembly of admission files, in line with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent access medical data?
No: strictly administrative (identity, entitlements, billing). No care data is handled; HDS hosting for health data.
Is it compatible with our hospital information system?
Yes: secure integration with your hospital information system and your patient administration, defined at the design stage.
Does the agent access care data?
No: its scope is administrative (identity, entitlements, billing); it does not access the medical record.
Does the hosting meet the HDS requirement?
Yes: an HDS hosting option (Health Data Host) for the processing concerned.
Does the agent state that it is an artificial intelligence?
Yes, from the very first interaction, and this is not a configuration option: since 2 August 2026, Article 50(1) of the European AI Regulation requires that any person interacting with an AI system be informed, unless this is obvious. The announcement is built into the greeting, in the other party’s language, and they can ask for a human at any time.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free audit that identifies the most useful use case, then a phase of design, integration with the hospital information system and testing before going live.
Do we need a technical team to run it?
No: the agent is designed, installed and operated by us, working with your IT department on the integration. The admissions teams use it after a few hours of familiarisation.
Do we have to change software?
No. The agent complements your existing patient administration, with no migration imposed.
Which tools can users use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email: users have no account to create and no application to install. This is a lever for access to the service — WhatsApp and the telephone reach people an online form never does, which reduces the non-take-up of rights and serves equal access. Internally, your public-sector staff talk to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, without switching tools. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections your level includes. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related roles
Other professions in hospitals and social protection
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your school
A few minutes to identify the most useful use case — HDS hosting in France, supervised, with no commitment.