Clinical behavior intelligence: diagnostic accuracy, treatment selection and workup completeness each up more than 20 points after feedback, and three key decisions before and after feedback. — An example case view. Illustrative values.

What the dashboard shows

Each chart compares an HCP's first decision with the decision they make after in-case feedback. Sample data: one live oncology program, one cohort.

The actions they took

The case: a patient on treatment develops a new symptom. Progression, infection, or a side effect of the treatment itself.

Where decisions within the case diverge from guidelines, and how they change after feedback.

Before feedbackAfter feedback

Required workup ordered before deciding+29 pts

52% 81%

Therapy held or adjusted on suspicion+29 pts

31% 60%

Correct dose selected+35 pts

19% 54%

Urgent referral made when indicated+31 pts

42% 73%

0%50%100%

The choices they made

One decision point in full. Where a message lands, and where adoption stalls.

Which options HCPs choose, and how those choices change after feedback.

Before feedback

33%37%16%10%

After feedback

71%10%12%

The recommended option33% → 71%
Default escalation37% → 10%
A partial measure16% → 12%
A more aggressive alternative10% → 5%
No change4% → 2%

The reasoning behind them

Every decision carries its rationale, in the HCP's own words. Which message pulled through, and which barrier is real.

Whether the right choice was made for the right reason, and what the real barrier is when it was not.

68-85%

of those choosing the recommended option cite the guideline, or a specific patient factor.

58-78%

of those choosing an alternative cite familiarity, or efficacy alone.

The reasons captured

Following the guideline
Efficacy
Patient barriers and tolerability
Risk of interactions
Familiarity with the option
Cost and patient access

Ranges across programs in type 2 diabetes, HIV and NSCLC.

The conversation itself

HCPs question the patient in free text. The goals are scored from what they ask, not from what they order, including empathy and shared decision-making.

What they ask the patient, and what they leave out.

Cohort average 72%Below the average

Treatment history and prior response 82%

Chief complaint 80%

Symptom and risk screen 80%

Communication skills 62%

The patient's life and barriers 57%

Assessed across 11 communication dimensions and 5 competency domains, with no manual grading. Cohort averages shown; individual reports also available.