The evidence the survey
asks for, recorded in the workflow
Closed-loop critical result communication, measured report turnaround and a per-exam trail. Accreditation still belongs to the service; the platform delivers proof that the process happened — with no parallel spreadsheet and no rebuilding history the day before.
From the standard to evidence that opens in front of the surveyor
Accreditation is not won with a printed policy: it is won by showing, in the system, that the process happened. The matrix links the function of each standard to what the surveyor asks to see and to what the platform produces on its own, exam by exam. Numbering varies between editions — confirm yours against the manual for the cycle in which your organization is enrolled.
| Function of the standard | Reference | What the surveyor asks to see | What the platform produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical result communication | IPSG.2 (7th ed.) · IPSG.2.1 (6th ed.) | Written process, defined timeframe, who communicates, who receives, and a record of each step | CRIT: finding identification, physician confirmation, communication with SLA by level and every step recorded on the exam |
| Closed-loop confirmation | IPSG.2, read-back element | Proof that the information reached someone who could act, with date, time and identification | Named acceptance recorded on the exam, with a timestamp and the person responsible — without relying on screenshots or spreadsheets |
| Report timeliness | AOP.6 (imaging services) | Release timeframe defined by the institution and measured continuously | TAT per exam, per queue and per radiologist, with a median measured in production (52 s from editor to signature) |
| Measurement and continuous improvement | QPS | Metric collected, analyzed and linked to an improvement action | Live dashboard of output, TAT and SLA, exportable for the quality committee |
| Information management | MOI | Intact records, defined retention and controlled access | Events and retention defined per module; role-based access control and data flow documented per deployment |
| Governance of clinical technology | GLD | Defined accountability for technology that touches clinical decisions | Documented assistive role, declared automation limits and a controls matrix for due diligence |
Laudos.AI does not accredit, does not certify and does not represent the institution before Joint Commission International. Accreditation belongs to the service; the platform comes in as a source of evidence for part of the scope.
The path the surveyor follows, recorded on its own
The standard requires a closed loop: someone who could act received, understood and confirmed. CRIT records that path as it happens — not afterward, from memory.
- 01
- The exam enters the critical queue with the reason it was flagged.
- 02
- The radiologist confirms or dismisses. Nothing goes out without that decision.
- 03
- It goes out to the defined recipient, with SLA by criticality level.
- 04
- The recipient confirms, and the name, date and time stay on the exam.
- 05
- The entire path remains attached to the exam for future reference.
What usually stalls the survey
Four questions sink more surveys than anything else — and all four are about records, not intent.
- AI suggested · 14:02:11Physician edited · 14:02:39Signed · 14:02:58 · log recordedCRITICAL RESULT
The loop no one can prove
The finding was communicated by phone, screenshot or messaging group. The conversation happened, but there is no record of who received it, when, and whether they understood. Without a documented closed loop, the process does not hold up under review.
- DEADLINE
A deadline that exists in the policy but not in the data
The policy defines the report release time, but the service cannot show the actual distribution by queue and by modality. A deadline without continuous measurement is an intention, not a metric.
- AUTHORSHIP
AI in the workflow with no declared role
When AI assists in producing the report, the question comes up: who decided? Without a record of what was suggested, what the physician changed and who signed, clinical authorship is hard to demonstrate.
- TRAIL
Evidence assembled the day before
History rebuilt from manual exports arrives fragile and inconsistent. What holds up in the survey is the record created alongside the care itself.
"Show me a case" — and the case is complete
The question that decides the survey is always the same: open an exam and show the path. These are the fields the trail keeps per exam, without anyone having to assemble anything for the audit.
What the institution takes to the committee
The documentation comes with the deployment, not after it.
- Per-exam trailRecord of authorship, suggestion, editing, signature and communication, exportable by period
- MetricsTAT per exam, queue and radiologist; critical finding SLA by level; volume by modality
- Access controlRole-based permissions, with a record of who accessed what
- Data flowRegions, subprocessors, processing, persistence and retention documented per deployment
- DocumentationArchitecture, data flow, subprocessors and controls matrix for IT and the DPO
- Role of AIDeclared assistive use, with review, editing and signature always by the physician (CFM Resolution 2.454/2026)
Questions from the quality committee
Does Laudos.AI accredit or certify the service?
No. Accreditation belongs to the institution, which conducts it with the accrediting body. The platform is a source of evidence for part of the scope: critical result communication, report timeliness, authorship records and the audit trail. The service itself is accountable for the service's compliance.
Do you cover all JCI standards?
No, and promising that would be dishonest. The manual covers the entire institution, from pharmacy to clinical engineering. The platform touches what goes through the radiology report. The matrix on this page shows exactly where it applies and where it does not.
Is the numbering of the cited standards up to date?
Numbering changes between editions — critical result communication is IPSG.2 in the 7th edition and was IPSG.2.1 in earlier ones. That is why the matrix is anchored to the function of the standard. Confirm the reference against the manual for the edition in which your organization is enrolled.
Is the critical finding communicated automatically?
No. CRIT flags and organizes, but confirmation belongs to the physician and clinical responsibility remains with them. Automating the decision to communicate would go against the assistive design and CFM Resolution 2.454/2026.
Does it work for national accreditation too?
The logic is the same: defined process, measured deadline, closed loop and an intact record. What changes is the manual being referenced. The evidence the platform produces is not specific to any one body.
Bring the quality committee into the conversation
We map your critical-finding workflow and your report deadline, and show what record the platform produces at each point. No slides.