AI for healthcare operations,
not clinical decisions.
Intake, scheduling, and documentation support — built to HIPAA Security Rule safeguards, with PHI boundaries and human oversight, not clinical automation.
Administrative and operational,
not clinical.
We build AI for the administrative and operational side of healthcare organizations — scheduling, intake, documentation support, and internal knowledge retrieval — not diagnostic or treatment-recommendation systems. We have no direct evidence or qualified clinical review process for that category of claim, and we say so plainly rather than imply otherwise.
Where this
actually applies.
Extracting structured data from forms and referrals. See document AI.
Automating the coordination work around appointments and records, not clinical judgment.
Grounded answers from internal operational policy, not medical advice. See RAG development.
Drafting administrative summaries for human review and sign-off. See AI copilot development.
A human signs off
before anything touches a record.
The same pattern as our document AI work generally, with PHI-specific access boundaries layered on top.
Nothing generated by the system reaches a patient-facing record or communication without a named person signing off on it first — see document AI for the field-level accuracy and confidence-threshold methodology this builds on.
What we hold
to a higher bar here.
| Metric | Why the bar is higher here |
|---|---|
| Field-level extraction accuracy | Measured per field on your actual intake documents, same methodology as our document AI work |
| Human sign-off rate | Target is 100% before any output reaches a patient record — this is a design constraint, not an interim measure |
| PHI-access incidents | Target is zero, tested adversarially before launch, not just monitored after |
| Documentation turnaround time | Measured against the pre-AI baseline for the same administrative task |
PHI boundaries
come first.
- PHI exposure — any system touching protected health information needs encryption, access control, and audit logging enforced technically, not assumed from policy.
- Human oversight — every administrative output stays reviewable and editable by a person before it affects a patient record or communication.
- Audit trails — what the system saw and what it produced has to be reconstructable after the fact.
- Private deployment — many healthcare organizations require data to stay within a specific infrastructure boundary; we support VPC and on-premise deployment where that's a requirement.
We build systems that
don't require us to touch PHI directly.
Dwayo builds administrative and operational systems designed so that PHI access, where it exists at all, stays within your own infrastructure and access controls — we do not sign Business Associate Agreements. Our work is built and tested to HIPAA Security Rule safeguards, which is a different claim from "HIPAA compliant" or "HIPAA certified," and we're explicit about that distinction. See HIPAA-ready AI development for the full control mapping.
Evidence,
not a policy document.
Access control, audit logs, and human-oversight design are built as inspectable controls. See AI governance for the inventory and risk-classification work, and our Trust & Safety and vendor security pages for the broader data-handling commitments. We are not legal counsel and do not give compliance sign-off — that stays with your organization's own counsel and compliance team.
On proof: our published case studies today are in fintech and e-commerce, not healthcare — we won't invent a healthcare result we don't have. What carries over directly is the methodology: the same field-level accuracy measurement and confidence-gated human review documented on our document AI page, with PHI-specific access controls added on top.
Before you
book a call.
Do you build clinical decision-support tools?
No — our healthcare work is administrative and operational. We don't have the direct evidence or qualified clinical review process that diagnostic or treatment-recommendation systems require.
Do you sign a BAA?
No — we build systems designed so PHI access, where it exists, stays within your own infrastructure. See HIPAA-ready AI development for how we describe this precisely.
Are you HIPAA certified?
There is no formal "HIPAA certification" to hold. Our systems are built and tested to HIPAA Security Rule safeguards — a specific, inspectable claim, not a marketing label.
Can you deploy privately within our infrastructure?
Yes — VPC and on-premise deployment are supported where that's a requirement.
What does the intake-to-documentation workflow actually look like?
Intake extraction, confidence-gated validation, human review and sign-off before anything touches a patient-facing record, and an audit log of every step — the same discipline as our document AI work generally, applied with PHI-specific access boundaries.
Do you have a healthcare-specific case study?
Not yet publicly — our published case studies are in fintech and e-commerce. The accuracy and governance methodology described on this page is the same one applied in those engagements, extended with PHI-specific controls. We'd rather say that plainly than imply a result we haven't shipped.
Tell us which
administrative workflow is the bottleneck.
Book a 30-minute call — we'll tell you honestly whether it's something we're the right fit to build.