A test request may start in a chart, the report may arrive in a laboratory portal, and the next action may be tracked in a third tool. Before adding software, a clinic needs to know what happens between those screens.
Take one representative test workflow and map each transfer: which system sends the work, which receives it, who checks it, and where an unfinished item remains visible? One system may handle several steps. Your map should describe the tools and responsibilities you actually have, including manual work.
The worksheet below is a pre-demo buying aid for a medical director and operations lead. It does not prescribe tests, clinical decisions, or follow-up timing.
Key takeaways
- Map both the system that holds or transfers an item and the person responsible for checking or closing it.
- Keep untested routes marked unknown; distinguish observed, manual, described-only and integration-dependent steps.
- Bring one invented scenario and the current-state worksheet to a vendor demo, then record what was actually shown.
Evidence scope
The five handoffs are an editorial way to examine a clinic’s workflow, drawing on AHRQ’s guide to the laboratory testing process (ordering through notification and follow-up) and the U.S. SAFER guide for EHR-based test-result reporting (introduction, pp. 1–2). Those sources address other care settings and do not validate this worksheet for longevity clinics. The HL7 FHIR records cited below describe a data model, not any vendor’s connection or performance. The Clinic A scenario is invented. Clinical and laboratory owners set their own test, interpretation and follow-up rules; this article does not do so.
Map the systems and the people separately
List the tools involved today. Depending on your clinic, they might include an order or chart system, a laboratory portal, a workspace for reviewing current and prior information, and a task or communication tool. These are prompts for your inventory, not a required stack. An EHR may serve more than one purpose; a person may carry information between systems.
For each transfer, write down both kinds of ownership:
- System ownership: Where does the request, report, task, or status live? What moves to the next tool, if anything?
- Human ownership: Who sends or checks it, who makes any qualified clinical decision, and who confirms completion under your clinic’s policy?
A result visible on a screen does not answer the second question. The EHR-focused SAFER worksheet asks organizations to make result-follow-up responsibility unambiguous (practice 2.4, p. 14). Applying that question to a buying team’s wider, multi-tool map is an editorial inference; it does not assign responsibility in your clinic.
Follow five handoffs from request to reviewed closure
1. Request → laboratory acceptance
Where is the request created? Where can the team see whether the intended laboratory has received or accepted it? Name the sending and receiving tools, the people who check the transfer, and the place where an unresolved request would remain visible. This is a question about the route, not which test to order.
2. Report → receipt and source check
Where does the report first arrive, and how does the clinic associate it with the right member and request? Record where its source and receipt status are checked. In your actual workflow, does information move as structured data, a document, or a manual entry?
These forms should not be conflated with a working integration. The HL7 FHIR R5 ServiceRequest definition distinguishes a diagnostic request from a DiagnosticReport (§§10.3.1–10.3.3), which can contain observations or an attached report. That data model does not establish what a particular laboratory or vendor supplies.
3. Receipt → qualified clinical review
Where does the designated clinician find the new report alongside the prior context the clinic uses? How can the team distinguish an item awaiting review from one already reviewed? Record the current tools and roles, then ask a proposed vendor to explain any change to that route. The worksheet does not interpret results.
4. Approved decision → communication and next action
After a qualified professional makes a decision under the clinic’s process, where is the communication or task recorded? Who receives it, and where does the team see whether it remains assigned or has been completed? The map describes the transfer. It does not decide what the message or action should be.
5. Next action or retest → reviewed closure
If the clinic’s own plan calls for a later test or review, where is that plan recorded? Trace how the next request, later report, and review are represented across the relevant tools. Name who checks each transfer and where the loop is marked complete under your policy. The clinic determines any timing and clinical response.
Copy the category × handoff ownership worksheet
Fill this in for your current workflow before shortlisting vendors. Replace the prompts with actual tool names and accountable roles. If a transition does not apply, record why. If two steps happen in one system, enter that system in both positions. An untested route stays unknown.
| Handoff | Current sending → receiving system category and tool | Human sender, receiver, and closure owner | Where unfinished work is visible | Evidence state and source | Open gap or proof to request |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request → lab acceptance | Enter current tools | Enter current roles or names | Enter location | Unknown until checked | Enter question |
| Report → receipt/source check | Enter current tools | Enter current roles or names | Enter location | Unknown until checked | Enter question |
| Receipt → clinical review | Enter current tools | Enter current roles or names | Enter location | Unknown until checked | Enter question |
| Decision → communication/next action | Enter current tools | Enter current roles or names | Enter location | Unknown until checked | Enter question |
| Next action/retest → reviewed closure | Enter current tools | Enter current roles or names | Enter location | Unknown until checked | Enter question |
For the evidence column, distinguish a route observed in your current workflow from a documented manual step, something described only, an integration-dependent route, or an unknown one. Mark a proposed capability demonstrated only after someone has observed the relevant step; record the environment and date. A sales description or architecture diagram alone does not show how a handoff works in your clinic.
Fictional example: Clinic A uses a laboratory portal and a separate chart. In this invented workflow, a coordinator notices that a report is available and creates a receipt task in the chart. A designated clinician reviews the report under that clinic’s own policy. The buying team records the portal-to-chart transfer as manual and asks where a report that has not been received or reviewed would remain visible. Clinic A is not a real clinic; the example establishes no safe allocation of responsibility or vendor capability.
This worksheet is an editorial evaluation aid. It has not been tested as a clinical safety instrument.
Turn open rows into shortlist questions
The completed map gives a vendor a specific workflow to respond to. For each open row, ask:
- Which part would the proposed system handle? What would remain in an existing tool or with a named person?
- What exchange between systems is needed? What evidence shows it works in the proposed deployment, and who maintains a manual or integration-dependent step?
- Where would the team see an item awaiting receipt, qualified review, communication, or another action? What would count as recorded completion?
- Which parts can the vendor demonstrate now with an invented scenario? Which are configuration work, future work, or still unknown?
The answers form an evidence request, not a vendor score. After mapping the current stack, the Clinical OS demo checklist for longevity clinics can guide a separate test of one product. Keep the current-state worksheet beside that demo; do not replace its unknowns with a vendor’s description.
If HolistiCare is on the shortlist, its clinician-facing longevity platform overview provides product context. Apply the same open-row questions to it. The overview alone does not verify an integration or handoff in your clinic.
Conclusion: bring the current route to a demo
Keep the current-state map beside any product demonstration. Show one invented request-to-retest route and ask who and which tool owns each transfer. Record what remains unknown.
If HolistiCare is among the candidates, bring that invented route to a HolistiCare workflow demo. Ask to see each applicable handoff and note what is demonstrated, manual, integration-dependent or still described. A demo is a chance to inspect a workflow; it does not establish that an integration is available in your clinic.
References
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, laboratory testing toolkit. Process guidance for ordering, notification and follow-up in an ambulatory setting; not validation of this longevity-clinic worksheet.
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, SAFER Guide 8: Test Results Reporting and Follow-Up. EHR-focused responsibilities and follow-up; applied here only as a question for a multi-tool map.
- HL7 FHIR R5 ServiceRequest definitions. Data-model definition of a request, not proof of an implemented laboratory connection.
- HL7 FHIR R5 DiagnosticReport. Data-model description of reports and possible observations/attachments, not vendor capability evidence.
