DEEP MIST
AI
All case studies

Representative engagement Healthcare Updated

Reducing Patient Intake Time by 68%

Forty-five-minute intake, down to fourteen, in three weeks.

Regional hospital network, roughly 200 beds, multi-site intake operations

68%

reduction in intake processing time

12,000+

patients processed per month

3 weeks

kickoff to production

99.2%

insurance verification accuracy

THE SITUATION

Why this work mattered

Every new patient required staff to transcribe referral documents by hand, verify insurance by phone, and search the EMR for an existing record. The end-to-end process averaged 45 minutes per patient and errors were common: duplicate records were created about 12% of the time, which sits inside the published industry band (a 10% duplicate-record rate is common across healthcare organizations, with some reaching 30%, while AHIMA frames 1% as the well-managed target). Insurance-verification backlogs meant patients sometimes waited days for confirmation. The commercial and clinical stake compounded: misidentification drives roughly a third of denied claims industry-wide, so a 12% duplicate rate is a revenue and a safety problem at the same time.

THE FAILURE MODE

What was breaking before us

The network had evaluated three off-the-shelf intake solutions. None could handle the variety of referral-document formats it received from more than 400 referring physicians. The systems assumed a clean, narrow input and the real input was 23 distinct document formats that changed by referrer. A tool that only works on the documents it was demoed with, and quietly mishandles the rest, fails exactly where intake volume is heaviest, and why those evaluations failed was the same in each case: format brittleness, not missing features.

THE BUILD

What we built

We spent the first three days embedded with intake staff, watching the real workflow and cataloguing the 23 referral-document formats actually in circulation. The system uses Claude Opus 4.8 to parse scanned and digital referral documents, extracting patient demographics, diagnosis codes, referring-physician details, and insurance information. A rules engine handles insurance-verification logic, cross-referencing extracted policy numbers against payer databases in real time. For patient matching, a fuzzy-matching step compares against the existing EMR, and critically it flags uncertain matches for human review rather than auto-merging. The output is a pre-filled intake form that staff verify and submit in about three minutes of hands-on review, the one human step inside an end-to-end intake that now runs about 14 minutes.

Pre-filled patient intake form with extracted fields and uncertain-match items flagged for staff review
Pre-filled patient intake form with extracted fields and uncertain-match items flagged for staff review

HOW IT WORKS

How it actually works

Dataflow diagram: referral document ingest, parse and extract, real-time insurance verification, fuzzy EMR match with human-in-the-loop on uncertain matches, pre-filled form output

Referral documents are parsed by Claude Opus 4.8 with GPT-5.5 as a cross-check on the harder formats, into a structured record. The rules engine validates insurance against payer databases over a FastAPI service backed by PostgreSQL, with documents staged in S3 and the pipeline running on AWS Lambda. The human boundary is the design principle, not a fallback: the fuzzy matcher never auto-merges an uncertain patient match, it routes it to a person, so AI carries the volume and a human carries every judgement call that touches a patient's record. Data handling is built for the regulated setting (PHI scoped, EMR integration, no auto-merge), which is the part that makes the speed defensible rather than reckless.

The system carries the volume. A person carries every judgement call.

THE OUTCOMES

The outcomes that held

Every number below carries its denominator, window, and scope. No claim a buyer with a calculator can break.

68%

reduction in intake processing time

per-patient end-to-end intake, roughly 45 minutes to about 14steady state post-rolloutnew-patient intake; complex exception cases routed to staff

12,000+

patients processed per month

new-patient intakes entering the workflowmonthly steady-state volumeacross the network's intake points

3 weeks

kickoff to production

single engagementkickoff to production cutoverparsing build plus EMR and payer-verification integration

99.2%

insurance verification accuracy

insurance verifications attempted by the systemproduction window to dateautomated verification path; uncertain cases flagged for staff, not auto-confirmed

SECOND-ORDER EFFECTS

Intake staff moved off transcription onto the verification and exception work that needs a person. Holding the duplicate-record risk behind a human-review gate addresses the downstream cost directly, because misidentification is a leading driver of denied claims industry-wide. Faster insurance confirmation removed the multi-day backlog that patients felt first. The network got a consistent intake record regardless of which of 400-plus referrers sent the documents.

We expected a proof of concept. They delivered a production system in three weeks that our staff actually wants to use, and it never merges a patient record on its own.

Director of OperationsRegional hospital network, roughly 200 beds

RELATED WORK

More of this work

The same shared system, applied to four other regulated and high-volume problems.

Tell us the problem. We'll scope the path.

Tell us the problem, the constraint, and what success looks like. We'll tell you whether there's a credible path to production.