Programmes, not appointments. The unit of work is a twelve-week arc.
A rehab chain does not sell visits. It admits a patient into a programme with an intensity target — three disciplines, five days a week, six to twelve weeks — and every missed hour is a clinical shortfall, not a gap in the diary.
Intensity targets fail quietly, one hour at a time.
A neuro programme promising fifteen therapy hours a week degrades to eleven without anyone deciding it should. A therapist is sick, an interpreter does not show, a transport slot slips. Each event is defensible. The cumulative shortfall is not, and it appears in the discharge summary months later.
Chains compound this: the same programme is delivered differently at each site because each site's schedule is built by a different person under different pressure.
- —Programme intensity drifting below the admitted target
- —Every site running its own version of the same pathway
- —Length of stay variance with no operational explanation
- —Transfers between sites restarting the plan from scratch
Three areas of the platform carry this.
The rest of the product is present and dormant. These three are the reason you would move.
Programme templates with intensity floors
Define the pathway once — disciplines, weekly hours, outcome measure cadence — and the planner schedules against the floor, flagging any week that will land under it while there is still time to recover the hours.
Cross-site continuity
A patient transferred from one site to another carries the plan, the measures and the remaining programme weeks. The receiving site inherits, it does not re-admit.
Outcome-linked reporting
FIM, Barthel, Berg and discipline-specific measures tracked against programme week, comparable across sites because the pathway definition is shared.
What your tenant hierarchy looks like.
The programme catalogue is defined at tenant level and versioned; sites may extend but not silently diverge.
Numbers, with the assumptions attached.
Modelled on a nine-site chain running four standard programmes across 640 rehabilitation beds with a 6% weekly staffing absence rate.
- One versioned catalogue
- Shortfall flagged mid-week
- Transfers inherit the arc
- Outcomes comparable site to site
These are modelled figures, not a named customer result. Every input is stated so you can substitute your own; where a range is meaningful we publish the sensitivity rather than a single confident number.
Bring one week of real demand to a demo and we will rerun the model live on your data.
See what it costs →The questions this room always asks.
It does not. The intensity floor produces a flag and a suggested recovery slot; a clinician accepts, amends or records a clinical reason to run below target. The reason is part of the record.
You may be more than one of these.
Model one programme against real staffing.
Give us one pathway definition and last quarter's absence rate. We will show where the hours leak.