The Health+Care IT industry has a history of software suppliers holding their customers to ransom. Whether that’s through controlling (read: limiting!) access to their data, charging extortionate amounts for integrations or shelving entire products and forcing customers to “migrate” to new and more expensive solutions!

At Interneuron, we do things differently. Our software is open source, we are a not for profit Community Interest Company and we ensure our software is “open-by-design” through our Open APIs.

Our open Modular Care Record has been designed to keep things simple for our customers and users. The core platform (Synapse) handles data integrations, terminologies, calculations, configurations and all commonly used application services, so this need only be done once. The responsive web client user interface framework (Terminus) is reused across all our modules and is designed to make it easy to search and filter groups of patients, based on location, specialty, team or any other criteria that is available. With the fundamentals taken care of we have been able to focus on the details of each module (e.g Observations, Fluid Balance, Assessments and Electronic Prescribing among others) to ensure they are fit for purpose and easy to use.

Our modular approach means that you are able to implement only the modules you need, and our integration technology allows us to integrate with your existing systems as you require.

We want our customers to be able to ‘Keep their options Open’.

To that end, we are also pleased to announce an industry first – we’ve deployed our solutions on a publicly available playground for anyone to see what our software is capable of:

Lastly, we want to improve transparency on our open source releases. In the past we’ve been slow to publish all of our developments to the public repositories on GitHub. Today, that changes – we are proud to announce our automated pipelines for publishing to GitHub: 

The Health+Care IT industry has a history of software suppliers holding their customers to ransom. W hether that’s through controlling...

Keep your options Open

Introducing Interneuron's Modular Care Record:

https://interneuron.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Modular-Care-Record-final.pdf

Introducing Interneuron's Modular Care Record: https://interneuron.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Modular-Care-Record-final.pdf...

Interneuron Modular Care Record

The challenge for medicines interoperability

For medicines interoperability to work across our healthcare system, standards are essential. But complying with these standards can often be harder than it seems. The PRSB information standards have the potential to make medicines data truly interoperable – but interoperability will also require a change in the way we prescribe medicines in secondary care. Molecule based prescribing (prescribing just the name of the active ingredient) is helpful in many ways – but for interoperability to work, we need to document the actual medicinal products a patient leaves hospital with, or there will always be a need for humans to clear up the ambiguity.

There are two ways of thinking about a therapeutic medicine – and while both are valid, they are at times, unhelpfully incompatible – or should I say un-interoperable.

A pharmaceutical organisation develops, tests and trials a medicinal product. The product is a ‘preparation’ of (one or more) active ingredients and if present, 

 has a form, a weight a manufacturer and a price. The product is ‘licenced for use’ in certain situations for specific clinical indications. It is sold to healthcare organisations who may use it for a licenced indication or (at their own risk) for an unlicenced indication.

 that the pharmaceutical organisation has tested, the 

 that has undergone a clinical trial, the 

 that has the clinical indication for use.

The molecule is the active ingredient. It is the actor within a biological process; the subject of academic research. Supporting evidence for the molecule is generalised from the clinical trials of actual medicinal products. The molecule is considered in the abstract. It is independent of any product. It does not have a form, a weight a manufacturer or a price.

In secondary care, the prescribing preference has been to use molecule-based prescribing. To use the correct jargon, hospital prescribers tend to prescribe Virtual Therapeutic Moieties (VTMs). The VTM is just the name of the active ingredient and a VTM prescription includes the dose and posology – for example: ‘Paracetamol – 500mg – 4 times a day until stopped’.

The VTM prescription provides several advantages:

A single VTM prescription can cover multiple different medicinal products and formulations so the prescriber can leave, to their pharmacy and nursing colleagues, more options as to what to actually give the patient:

Options related to which brand is the most cost effective

Options related to the specific form/formulation

Options related to the route of administration (prescribing for multiple routes: Oral, Intravenous etc)

The prescriber only needs to remember the dose of the active ingredient and the posology

Your prescription must be reviewed by pharmacy/nursing staff – who may correct prescribing errors

The options leave open significant ambiguity:

Ambiguity between different potential preparations

e.g. Lithium is available as two salts, lithium carbonate and lithium citrate, which are not dose equivalent.

Did the prescriber want the patient to have a liquid, a tablet or a capsule?

Did the prescriber want the patient to have a gastro-resistant or modified release formulation?

Unintended over/under dose when multiple routes are prescribed

Some medicines are far more potent when given intravenously than orally

VTM prescribing for multi-ingredient drugs

e.g. Prescribing 500 mg of Co-codamol is not a valid prescription. Co-codamol consists of two active ingredients with different doses e.g. 15 mg of Codeine phosphate and 500mg paracetamol. Prescribing 500mg of ‘Co-codamol’ is not a valid prescription.

Error correction by pharmacy not feeding back to prescribers

Where prescribers rely on pharmacy to correct errors and do not get adequate feedback – prescribing errors will continue.

Pharmacy dispensing cannot be automated as there are too many potential products that could match a VTM prescription.

Primary care providers, who sometimes have their own on-site pharmacy, have long understood the practical and financial benefits of prescribing products in primary care. The vast majority of primary care prescription are simple formulations (tablets, inhalers, creams) and their product based prescriptions do not require further interpretation before dispensing.

Our problem occurs when medicines data is transmitted between secondary and primary care. When a patient is admitted it is easy for a clinician (or computer) to ‘convert’ a medicinal product prescription to a VTM prescription. But when a patient is discharged, automatically ‘converting’ a VTM to a medicinal product is almost always impossible – there are just too many options, too much ambiguity.

In the world of medicines digital interoperability, it would be a lot easier if everyone just prescribed medicinal products. If actual products are documented, data is easily shared. There would be no ambiguity, and digital systems could interoperate without the need for human intervention.

In my opinion, the solution is to ensure that when a patient is discharged from hospital, the discharge prescription only contains medicinal products. During the inpatient stay, hospital prescribers should be free to use VTM prescriptions on the inpatient drug chart, and work with their pharmacy and nursing colleagues to ensure safe and cost-effective dispensing and administration. But when a patient leaves hospital, if we want medicines interoperability, we need to prescribe products to remove the ambiguity.

Interneuron are delighted to be working with the PRSB to ensure the discharge summary standard supports medicines digital interoperability, and look forward to seeing the impact of this and other PRSB standards as they are adopted across the NHS.

Originally written for and published by the PRSB: Medicinal product or molecule? – PRSB (theprsb.org). The challenge for medicines...

Medicinal product or molecule?

The Royal National orthopaedic Hospital has been shortlisted for not one, but two categories for this years HTN Awards. Winners will be announced on October 7th. The longstanding partnership between Interneuron and RNOH has delivered a host of benefits in respect of clinician and nursing focused digital solutions, as part of the journey to a fully open source, modular health record. You can read more about the shortlisting here, 

https://htn.co.uk/health-tech-awards-finalists-2021-excellence-in-digital-co-design/

https://htn.co.uk/health-tech-awards-2021-finalists-health-tech-team-of-the-year/

The Royal National orthopaedic Hospital has been shortlisted for not one, but two categories for this years HTN Awards

HTN Tech Awards 2021

A roundtable discussion on digital transformation in nursing held in association with Interneuron. 

Designing and introducing digital solutions for nurses | Nursing Times

A roundtable discussion on digital transformation in nursing held in association with Interneuron

Designing Digital Services for Nurses

Today, we are excited to announce that Interneuron is an official PRSB Standards Partner. Our philosophy has always been to ensure that everything we develop, follows the applicable standards and The Professional Standards Record Body is at the leading edge when it comes to the use of standards for safer care and quality patient outcomes. 

 are widely recognised as the definitive source of information that supports both excellence in care.

Today, we are excited to announce that Interneuron is an official PRSB Standards Partner. Our philosophy has always 

Interneuron, a PRSB Standards Partner

Matt Phillips, lead clinical practitioner for the acute intervention team at Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, speaks with The Nursing Times about how they worked with Interneuron on the development of the digital observations module; the latest addition to Interneurons digital health+care record solution.

Creating an electronic solution for early warning scores

Matt Phillips, lead clinical practitioner for the acute intervention team at Royal National    Orthopaedic Hospital, speaks with The Nursing Times about how they worked with

Creating an electronic solution for early warning scores – a Nursing Times interview

The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (

) has now gone live with a Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) solution, provided by Interneuron.

Interneuron’s Observation module has been live for 9 months and is successfully delivering results in line with the NEWS2 (National Early Warning Scores) standard. This further development of the Paediatric component enhances the ability of RNOH to deliver quality care at the bedside for all its patients. The browser-based application provides device independence at a much more attractive price point and allows the Trust to continue using their current devices (iPads).

The Observation module is just the first component of our strategy to deliver an Open Standards, Open Source Modular Electronic Care Record. Working in partnership with RNOH has enabled the creation of clinically led solutions to a range of patient focussed activities. (For full details on this, see RNOH signs partnership with Interneuron). In addition, RNOH and Interneuron will be making this new technology available to the whole NHS. Other Trusts will now not only be able to freely download, test and implement the software developed, they will also be able to get support from Interneuron by using a procurement Framework provided by RNOH for this very purpose.

Paul Fish, CNO and Deputy CEO at RNOH says that

“This completes the rollout of our digital patient observations implementation and builds on our adult NEWS 2 rollout. Now, all patients at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital have early warning scores calculated, at risk patients are identified and further actions, such as the sepsis protocol, can be taken”

Saroj Patel, Executive Director, Chief Digital & Innovation Officer says that

“This is the first step on our open platform digital strategy and will be followed by several other nurse facing applications. Our aim is to greatly increase our digital inpatient data levels and accuracy, in order to continue to improve quality of care”

Interneuron is a different kind of health + care software company. We are different because we have a different purpose: unlike typical Limited Companies (Ltd), Interneuron is a Community Interest Company (CIC) that exists primarily for the benefit of those in need of health and social care services and not for the profit of our shareholders. To this purpose we are committed to being open, ethical, and accountable. 

Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust (Stanmore) is a specialist orthopaedic hospital located in Greater London, United Kingdom. It provides the most comprehensive range of neuro- musculoskeletal health care in the UK, including acute spinal injury, complex bone tumour treatment, orthopaedic medicine, and specialist rehabilitation for chronic back pain. The RNOH is a major teaching centre and around 20% of orthopaedic surgeons in the UK receive training there.

The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (www.rnoh.nhs.uk) has now gone live with a Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) solution,...

RNOH Goes Live with Interneuron’s PEWS Observations

Our strategy at Interneuron is a platform+apps approach so the platform is fundamental to our success with almost half of our engineering team focusing on it at any one time. In fact, one of our core engineering principles is ‘Platform-first’ – if something can be centralised, shared and re-used then it should be a service or function of the platform rather than the client.

We are proud of the architecture we’ve designed and implemented so far, but we still have a long way to go. We 

 and with several NHS deployments under our belt, we want to take a moment to share some of the thought process that has gone into designing our flagship product – Interneuron Synapse.There are three aspects of Synapse that set it apart:

One of the biggest benefits of a platform+apps approach is the ability to re-use data across applications – but without a structured, human readable and extensible data model its just not possible. Whilst there are some attempts to standardise Health+Care data models, we didn’t feel any of these were mature or extensible enough for our customers. Interneuron Synapse includes our Studio tool for managing, extending and building your own data models.

We want it to be as easy to get data out of the platform as it is to get data into it, but we also do not want to constrain how the data is accessed. We have therefore implemented:-

Dynamic object-based APIs – These APIs allow the persistence, update and logical deleting of any object within the platform

List and Base View APIs – These APIs allow you to create your own views of the data through the creation of SQL views which are then exposed, through our security model as APIs.

Data Export Services – We know that sometimes you need to extract large amounts of data – for use-cases such as Business Continuity, so we enable the generation of extracts based on any List or Base View.

Anonymisation and Pseudo-Anonymisation APIs – For research and other use-cases where identifiable datasets are not permitted.

We believe it’s important to be able to go back to any record at any point in time and be able to see exactly what was available at that point – therefore, we made the decision that our platform would be insert-only. The platform automatically versions, collapses and archives your data so you don’t need to worry about it. A full audit trail is available through our Open APIs too!

These are just some of design decisions we have made to date and we invite you to view our source code on 

 – all feedback is welcomed. In a future blog post, we will take you through our microservice architecture pattern for Interneuron Synapse.

There are many Health+Care specific platforms now widely available and in use throughout the NHS. However, not all platforms are equal.

Not all platforms are equal

The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH) NHS Trust

 to develop, deliver and support an open source clinical data platform.

The project will see RNOH replace their legacy technology with a world-class clinical data platform that will revolutionise the way in which data is integrated, collected, stored and used by end-users.

The platform approach will permit RNOH to embark on an innovation led strategy where new applications can be developed on top of the clinical data platform. Initial applications will support electronic bed boards and nursing observations.

In addition, RNOH and Interneuron will be making this new technology and applications available to the whole NHS. Other trusts will not only be able to freely download, test and implement the software developed, they will also be able to get support from Interneuron by calling off this framework contract.

Our vision is that in time others will join RNOH to gain the benefits of their investments, develop new world class applications and dramatically reduce the total cost of ownership of healthcare software in the NHS.

Interneuron has signed a contract with The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH) NHS Trust to develop, deliver and support an open...

RNOH signs Interneuron

Outside of healthcare, open source software dominates. The internet is driven by it, most mobile phones are powered by it. It has become a byword for reliability, scalability, and security. Its promise to accelerate innovation has been proven time and time again. So in healthcare – what’s holding us back?

The answer I think, is found in a combination of three different aspects of our industry: Healthcare culture itself; the need for software suppliers to grow; and, above all, the need for those who do build open source projects to control them. And it’s this last point that I want to stress: if we want to accelerate innovation in healthcare software, we just need to be more open.

Healthcare is, quite rightly, a highly regulated industry. New services, new treatments, new software and even new ideas, are thoroughly evaluated before being adopted. This is as much a cultural norm as it is an operational requirement. Innovation carries risk and risks in healthcare can have serious consequences. As a result, the main question asked when a healthcare provider buys new software is: where has this software been used before? This presents a real challenge to software suppliers who need to strike a balance between innovation and maintaining an evidence-base for legacy systems. Clearly, at its extreme, if the entire healthcare market only adopted software already in use – nothing new would ever be developed.

Many companies move into healthcare from other industries, taking a product that is in current use and trying to adapt it for healthcare. For ‘back office’ applications this might not be that hard – there is nothing healthcare specific about payroll or email. But for clinician and patient-facing applications, these companies usually run into problems. The first is that healthcare is not a single industry: it is a 

. Changes made for one specialty will require additional changes for the next – a cause of constant frustration for the naive market entrant. The second is related to the first. The need to continually adapt the product can limit business growth. While a company can generate profit with a few customers, the 

, is practically impossible. The final problem is market demand. Why would companies that have established simple products need to innovate when they can simply sell what they already have? A risk averse market does not reward innovation.

While it might require unusual effort from both software suppliers and healthcare providers, innovation 

 happen in our health service and there are many impressive isolated examples. The problem is trying to replicate these elsewhere. Obstacles to wider adoption are often attributed to ‘resistance to change’, ‘not-invented-here syndrome’ or ‘healthcare complexity’ – but I find these explanations unconvincing.

From my perspective, the biggest obstacle has been the need to control by the innovators themselves. When a healthcare provider develops a homegrown solution, almost immediately the question of selling the solution to others is raised. Care providers are not set up to commercialise software or sell it to others and the need to protect their (now financial) investment can stifle wider adoption.

When a software supplier takes the time to really understand their customer and builds a solution that ‘just works’, pressure for growth and a return on their investment, prevents more money being spent to make the changes required for the next customer – and again wider adoption stalls.

Few now question that the best way to ensure wider adoption of innovative software is to open source the code. However, the desire for control can still lead to problems resulting in projects that are open source in name only, with code not being readily available, out of date, or just too difficult to use. There are sadly too many examples of this in healthcare.

This last point is for me the most important and is why is Interneuron is supporting the new OpenChain project backed by the Linux Foundation.

 Specification defines a core set of requirements every quality compliance program must satisfy – making open source compliance simpler and more consistent. Organisations can display their adherence to these requirements and build trust for both customers and partners.

If we want faster innovation in healthcare software, something has to change. We aren’t going to change the culture of healthcare or the nature of commercial industry, but we can change how open our open source projects are – and we can insist they comply with new industry standards like OpenChain.

If you’d like to know more about what we’re doing please visit our 

We need to be more open Outside of healthcare, open source software dominates. The internet is driven by it, most mobile phones are...

It’s time to be more open

This week our new health secretary, Matt Hancock, spoke on the radio about the importance of technology in our healthcare system. His interviewer started by asking:

“Why is it that the kind of seamless use of technology that you get from so many of the services you use – the technology that remembers who you are, what your preferences are, what services you need and use – why is it that that is not widely available and widely used in the NHS?”.

Essentially, the interviewer was asking why NHS IT hasn’t caught up with consumer industries.

This is a good question. Although it is not a new one, it is one we keep failing to answer properly.

The lazy answer is the need for more money. As past projects (NPfIT) have shown us, more money does not guarantee success. US healthcare provides a good example of how increased technology spend can do little or nothing to integrate care.

So what makes this question so difficult to answer? The problem lies in thinking of healthcare as a single industry.

I often hear the medical industry compared to other ‘more mature’ industries. Usually this is done by salesmen, but sometimes, more worryingly, by politicians. There is a belief that the problems faced by our health service would benefit from adopting the approaches used in “other industries”. It’s worrying because trying to use the metaphor of another specific industry to help manage and improve a whole health service simply doesn’t make sense.

The argument goes: Our healthcare service “…should be more transactional, like banking”, “…should be more focused on safety, like the airline industry”, “…should be more consumer-focused, like the retail industry”, “…should reduce waste and empower employees, like the ‘lean’ automotive industry”. The list goes on.

From the outside you might be forgiven for thinking healthcare is just another industry: after all, we use a single name for it. But take a deeper look and you will see it is actually multiple different industries labouring under the same banner. The truth is that medicine itself is a ‘meta-industry’.

So what does that mean in terms of answering the question?

Modern medicine – and by modern, I mean in the last 2000 years – is built on the notion that human beings are so similar, it is possible to describe things that go wrong with them independent of the individual affected. A disease can be defined, described and studied in the abstract. This abstract idea gives rise to a very general approach: identify a problem; diagnose a disease; prescribe a treatment.

This approach is applied in many different problem domains and each new domain gives rise to a different medical specialty. Some domains might be defined anatomically (orthopaedics, gastroenterology, cardiology); others physiologically (endocrinology, haematology, immunology); and many cut across both (primary care, intensive care, oncology). And after each new scientific discovery that explains more about the human condition, there are opportunities for entirely new specialties (genetics, fertility, cybernetics).

It doesn’t stop there. The success of this general approach means it has been applied in non-healthcare industries as well. The output of a production line is likely to produce products that are far more similar than a population of human beings. It makes sense then to “diagnose a fault” or the use “diagnostic systems” with analogous classification of system problems, faults and fixes.

My point is that each medical specialty is akin to a specific industry in and of itself. While they all adhere to the same general approach (we can discuss psychiatry another day…) each specialty is different: Obstetrics has as much in common with ENT as the airline industry has with banking.

So trying to apply a specific industry practice to the whole of medicine simply betrays a lack of understanding of what medicine actually is: a meta-industry.

This to me explains why healthcare software has lagged behind other industries. The comparison is simply not a fair one. And while Matt Hancock is correct when he answered the question on how to fix the problem:

“There will be required standards of data protection, standards of cybersecurity (and) crucially standards of interoperability so systems can talk to each other”

… he must go further than standards alone. He must support the adoption of software that embodies these standards. And the best way to get these adopted is to provide it open source.

Open technologies that implement required standards, freely available, could have the same effect for healthcare IT as the Android operating system has had for smart phones: a common platform that embodies standards that engineers and developers can work against, that can be applied in many different industries (and medical specialties).

Interneuron CIC is looking to make this approach a reality. We are a healthcare IT software company with a very flexible approach to technology and a business model that fits.

If you’d like to know more about what we’re doing please visit our website and drop us a line.

Healthcare: A meta-industry

I have seen our healthcare industry from several different perspectives: as an NHS doctor, an academic, and a commercial supplier of healthcare IT. The motives that drive the many elements of the system are complex and so it’s taken me a while to figure out and accept that at the heart of it all, the healthcare industry is driven by money: Commissioning business cases must be approved; Departmental budgets must be spent; Public sector savings must be made; Company sales targets must be hit.

In this article, I don’t want to discuss the complex financial drivers of the public sector but rather those of the private sector and specifically those of healthcare software suppliers to the public sector.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to divide these private sector software companies into two groups: those that are privately owned and those that are publicly owned by shareholder investors.

The primary motive for both types of company is profit. But there is an important difference between the publicly and privately owned company which has a big effect on how they behave – and it’s the difference between profit and growth.

If a small company in a given year makes £100,000 surplus, it has achieved its primary purpose – profit. In a private company this is great. Everyone gets paid their salary, and might even get a small bonus. The challenge for the private company is to decide how much of the profit to invest back into the company in research and development (R&D) to retain its competitive advantage.

The private company can continue to make exactly the same amount of profit every year (in-line with inflation) and – as long as it doesn’t make bad investment decisions or take too much money out of the company (as dividends) – it continues to achieve its primary purpose: profit.

All is good for the well run private company – until its owners decide to sell the shares and become a publicly owned company.

In a public company (with numerous shareholder investors) things are a little more complex. A profit of £100,000 in year one might be acceptable. The team expands, growth targets are set. If exactly the same amount of profit is made in the second year then there is a problem and the company might ‘pivot’ as the strategy is reviewed. Should the same profit be made in the third year then restructuring with loss of personnel is now a very real option and by year four, with all the stress and internal change, achieving even the same profit as the previous year becomes highly unlikely. The company is ultimately headed for closure, merger or acquisition.

This different behaviour is brought about by the need for growth and when I use the term growth I do not mean linear growth I mean exponential growth.

Exponential growth happens in consumer markets (business to consumer or B2C markets). A software product is a hit and consumers buy it. It goes viral – and like a virus its growth is exponential. There are literally millions of potential customers and early growth can be astonishing. There are thousands of competitors and the market evolves quickly.

This is not the case in the public sector market (business to business or B2B markets). Here a software product is built and marketed, a customer organisation wishes to buy it and gives notice of a public tender, a handful of competitors are selected to bid and the tender is awarded on the best response. The process usually takes 6 – 12 months. The number of potential customers is only in the hundreds. Tenders tend to happen sequentially (smaller organisation like to follow the lead of larger ones) which means selling is slow. Lastly, there are only a few competitors as the tender regulations exclude many organisations. The market evolves slowly.

At first glance the public sector healthcare industry appears to be a lucrative sector for the shareholder investor looking for exponential growth: Healthcare expenditure is in the billions and is only going to go up. But for the reasons outlined above, exponential growth in this market under the current regulations is simply unrealistic. Add to this scenario the fact that future public sector funding is directly linked to the economy (where periods of recession are inevitable) and continuous exponential growth appears all but impossible.

If we want to move the world of healthcare software forward we need to recognise that this is an integral part of the problem and address it head-on.

And I believe there is a viable solution: the creation of commercial organisations where the primary motive is neither profit nor growth. Let me explain.

In 2005 the UK Government introduced a different kind of limited company, something called the Community Interest Company. While virtually identically to a regular limited company (it can be guaranteed by shares, own property, sign contacts etc.) there are some fundamental differences. Firstly, its primary purpose is not for the profit of its shareholders. Instead, its directors must pursue a specific purpose that is for the benefit of a defined community: a ‘community interest statement’. Secondly, it must comply with an ‘asset lock’ – a legal clause restricting the amount of money that can be taken out of the company – thus ensuring the majority of any surplus remains. Thirdly the company must be approved by the government regulator.

While the idea of the CIC (pronounced ‘kick’) might have originally been to provide a vehicle for charitable organisations to provide more commercial services, or for communities to run community social enterprises, the CIC company structure is proving increasingly popular in many other domains.

Interneuron CIC was incorporated at the end of 2017 to provide health+care software services to the UK public sector. We believe our business model, which demands neither profit nor growth – just sufficient surplus to sustain our long term vision – is the perfect commercial vehicle to move the industry forward. By focusing on the design, delivery and implementation of healthcare software services and not exponential growth, we believe we have a strategic advantage over our competitors, that in the long term will enable us to deliver the safe, secure and flexible software solutions that we believe the industry needs.

I have seen our healthcare industry from several different perspectives: as an NHS doctor, an academic, and a commercial supplier of healthcare IT.

Profit vs. Growth

The proper management of a patient's fluid balance is a fundamental element of delivering safe and effective care and is all too often ignored by digital system providers. Interneuron’s Fluid Balance module has been developed in close liaison with clinicians and nurses to ensure comprehensive functionality managing both routine and complex (infusion) fluid inputs and outputs.

Fluid Balance

Accurate 24 hour fluid balance monitoring is essential in the prevention and management of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) as well as the routine management of post operative patients. 

Safe prescribing and inpatient medicines administration of NHS standard dm+d medicines. We support supply requests, medicines reconciliation and reminders.

openEPMA

The Discharge Summary Module simplifies the inpatient discharge process. Taking data from openEPMA and the Handover Module, it auto-populates the first draft of the discharge summary allowing the discharging clinician to review, edit and authorise a safe discharge.

Discharge

The Medicines Management Console (MMC) gives your pharmacists complete control over the medicines and prescribing options within openEPMA. The MMC supports dm+d by default, but allows the addition of new research therapies, default warnings, reminders and endorsements.

Medicines Management

Knowing where your patients are and how they move though your organisation is essential to the efficient running of any healthcare organisation. The Patient Flow Modules allows you to see and monitor patients in real time from admission to timely discharge.

Patient Flow

Our Observations Module is based on the Royal College of Physicians NEWS2 scoring design. We have extended it to support PEWS and it can be easily configured to support  bespoke scoring systems as required. We have worked with NHSDigital on the new National PEWS scoring system.

Observations

The flexibility in our Assessments Module is incredibly powerful. We support both clinical and administrative assessments (e.g. VTE and nursing risk assessments), pre-populating data that has already been entered before and capturing new structured data where necessary.

Assessments

Keeping up to date with the most recent changes to inpatient care is especially important during handover. Our Handover Module provides a summary view of your inpatients, that can be updated in realtime, supports task management and SNOMED clinical coding.

Resources