Healthcare software you can trust with patients, and with data.
We build clinical and health platforms where uptime, data integrity, and privacy aren't features, they're the baseline. From hospital operations to patient-facing health apps, we help healthcare organisations cut admin load and clinical risk without compromising care or compliance.
The constraint
In healthcare, the person the data is about is not the person using the software. A patient does not choose the systems their hospital runs, does not agree the integrations, and in most cases never sees the platform. They are simply the reason it exists and the person who carries the consequence when it goes wrong. That produces two requirements that pull against each other: a clinician needs the full picture, and the patient needs to keep control of their own history. Most healthcare software quietly resolves the tension in the clinician's favour and calls it interoperability. The platforms below were designed to hold both.
Three of the healthcare platforms we have built, chosen because each one turned on a different constraint.
A clinical platform for NHS trusts
The clinical record already had a home, so we did not copy it into ours. Duplicating a national health record would have created a second source of truth carrying all the obligations of the first. Instead a middleware layer shapes what a screen needs in one call rather than eleven, which keeps the platform fast without holding a second copy of the record.
One containerised build runs in managed cloud or inside a trust's own infrastructure, from the same artefact and the same release. For some organisations patient data leaving their walls is not a preference to be negotiated, and the usual answer is a cut-down on-premises edition that is always behind. One build means the organisations with the strictest requirements are not left running the oldest software.
Delivered as the engineering partner to a UK agency, for use by NHS trusts in England.
ElloMed, clinic operations built around the visit
A patient can leave the room for vitals without losing their place. In ElloMed the visit is one record with a state rather than a session that ends when the room empties. Every informal version of this closes the consultation and opens a new one, so a single visit produces two records and the clinician reconstructs what they were thinking. Modelling the encounter that way is a decision rather than a feature, and it is the one the rest of the platform hangs off.
The queue answers the fairness question. Almost every argument at a clinic reception desk is about order, and software either provides a defensible answer or leaves a receptionist to invent one under pressure.
A precision longevity platform
A leaked password is changed by the afternoon. There is no equivalent action for a genome, at any price, for the rest of somebody's life. It is also not only theirs, because it discloses a great deal about parents, siblings and children who never consented to anything. And it identifies by itself, so anonymisation in the ordinary sense is not available.
That changes the design question from how to recover from a breach to how to be worth less to somebody who achieves one. Biological data and identity are held apart, encrypted under managed keys held separately from the data, and the raw marker set is read by almost nothing. The pair is what an attacker wants, and the pair is the thing the platform never holds in one place.
These are three of the healthcare and life sciences platforms we have worked on. The full set is in our case studies, including work we cannot name.
What we would expect to deal with on your platform
Not a service list. Four problems that show up on most healthcare platforms, and the decision we made when each showed up on ours.
Hospital systems were never designed to talk to each other and will not be redesigned to suit a platform. Each source gets a mapping, and every clinical module is written once against one internal model.
A patient arrives at a clinic that does not hold their history. The record being unavailable is safe and transfers clinical risk to the person in the consulting room. The record shared on trust is convenient and the patient finds out afterwards or not at all. Access as a grant the patient issues is neither.
A language model handed clinical data will produce something that reads like a diagnosis, fluently, and nothing errors. The boundary has to be enforced by the software rather than caught by a reviewer on every report.
Nothing in software makes a laboratory faster. Turnaround is a physical process with a physical duration. What software can do is make the state visible, because the support load from a long process comes almost entirely from uncertainty rather than duration.
Security and control design
In healthcare a breach is a regulatory failure and a human one at the same time, and it is not recoverable by explaining it well afterwards. That is why the controls are structural rather than procedural: they hold whether or not everyone remembers.
Access control reaches the individual interface component rather than the page, so a control a role may not use is not rendered and then refused.
Fields a role has no clinical reason to read are masked rather than discouraged, which is the difference between a control and a training slide.
The most sensitive values are encrypted individually, so reading the underlying store is not the same as reading a patient record.
Audit on access and change is immutable, written where the application cannot revise it, because the question is not only whether something was seen but whether that can be shown later.
Data stores sit on private networks and are not reachable from outside.
Each organisation's data is isolated rather than sharing a store.
Components hold scoped credentials rather than administrative ones, so a single failure has a bounded reach.
Access patterns are monitored, not only access rights, because a valid credential used unusually is the earliest signal there is.
What we advised clients not to hold
The clinical record was not copied, so the platform holds a fraction of the sensitive data it could have. Certifications belong to the client, who was audited for them and holds the evidence. On the longevity platform, identity and biology are kept apart deliberately, because the pair is worth far more to an attacker than either alone.
Each of those is a category of exposure that was declined rather than managed, and an obligation never taken on is absent rather than reduced each year.
Deployment, and where data is allowed to live
One containerised build, deployable to managed cloud or inside an organisation's own infrastructure, from the same artefact. Not a reduced on-premises edition maintained alongside the real one, which is two products with one name where the second is always behind.
Data residency is a decision made with the client rather than an assumption imposed. Where patient data is allowed to live is agreed before the architecture, not discovered after it.
Which trust services criteria this work is judged on
The platforms are built to operate under the frameworks that are our clients' obligations: HIPAA, GDPR, and DPDP. Separately, the control set is designed against the SOC 2 trust services criteria, which is a statement about how a platform was built rather than a claim to hold an attestation.
Confidentiality is carried by masking, field-level encryption and component-level access, the controls above rather than a policy document.
Privacy is the unusual one, and it belongs to healthcare. The criterion concerns the people the data is about and what say they have. On these platforms that includes patients who did not choose the software, and on the longevity platform it includes parents, siblings and children who never consented to anything and cannot be informed. That is a design constraint rather than a compliance technicality, and it is why the platforms hold as little as they can and join it as late as they can.
Availability, because a clinic cannot pause and reschedule its morning, and a hospital does not stop at nine.
The boundary, stated plainly. The control set is designed against the criteria rather than mapped to them afterwards, so an organisation preparing for an attestation is documenting controls that already exist rather than retrofitting them under time pressure. That is a statement about how a platform was built. It is not a claim to hold an attestation, and the quality and regulatory certifications a client operates under belong to them. We don't claim certifications we don't hold.
What this costs to run
Four things a finance leader should know before committing to a platform like this, each drawn from real work.
Reports and analysis regenerate rather than requiring a retest, so improving interpretation costs compute rather than another sample and another laboratory run.
One codebase serves both deployment shapes, so an on-premises option does not carry a permanent second maintenance cost.
Administrative time returned to clinical staff is the largest recurring saving available in a hospital, because it is staff cost rather than software cost.
Preparing for an attestation is documentation rather than remediation, which for an organisation that needs one is a difference measured in quarters and in consultant fees.
Outcomes we can evidence
How you'd work with us
Pick the level of ownership that suits you.
Staff augmentation
Add senior healthcare-experienced engineers to your team.
Dedicated team
A committed team that runs like your own.
Full delivery
Hand over the build and we deliver it end to end.
Frequently asked questions
Can you deploy on-premises or keep data in our country?
Yes. One containerised build deploys to managed cloud or inside your own infrastructure, from the same artefact, for organisations whose rules won't allow patient data to leave their own walls. Data residency and deployment model are decisions we make with you, not assumptions we impose.
How do you handle HIPAA, GDPR, and DPDP?
The platforms are built to operate under HIPAA, GDPR, and DPDP, which are our clients' obligations, with access control, masking, field-level encryption, and audit designed in from the start. Separately, the control set is designed against the SOC 2 trust services criteria. That is a statement about how the platform is built, not a claim to hold an attestation, and we don't claim certifications we don't hold.
Do you work with FHIR and existing EHR systems?
Yes. We build FHIR-based interoperability that normalises records, labs, imaging, and billing from different systems into one real-time view, rather than forcing you to rip out what already works.
Can you modernise our legacy systems without disrupting care?
Yes. We modernise incrementally, integrating with what you run today and migrating in stages, so clinical operations keep running while the platform underneath improves.
Building healthcare software that has to be right?
Tell us what you're building, and we'll tell you honestly how we'd approach it.