Clinic Policy Concierge | Real Minds AI

Where it works well

It takes the "where is that written" lookup load off your senior clinical and practice-management staff.

Best for a busy or multi-site practice where reception, practice nurses and new hires can't walk to the practice manager's desk for every "what does our policy say".
It cites the document, version and section it used (the demo lights up Patient Records & Privacy SOP v2, §4.2) so the staff member reads the actual policy, not a confident paraphrase.
The recaptured hours go back to your practice manager and clinical governance lead for the judgement work — interpreting a grey case, drafting a new procedure, handling an exception.

The invisible cost in a general practice is the interruption tax: the same handful of operational questions — how long to keep a minor's records, the cold-chain breach procedure, the chaperone policy — land dozens of times a week on the practice manager or a senior GP, and the answer usually comes from memory or a SOP nobody can find fast, not the current approved document.

Where it works badly

It is only ever as right as the corpus you give it — and it cites a stale or contradicting version with full confidence.

It can't reason across documents or apply a clinical judgement — "is this presentation safe to manage in-rooms" is a decision the policy text can't make for you.
If your SOPs live as old versions scattered across shared drives, it will surface a superseded records-retention or cold-chain procedure as readily as the live one.
A 40-page PDF of unbroken prose with no section numbers gives it nothing to cite back to — it needs a "§4.2" to point at.

The honest test

Open your shared drive and try to point to the single, current, approved version of your records-retention and cold-chain policies — if you can't do that in under a minute, the document work comes before the retrieval layer.

Index two versions of the infection-control policy, or a handbook that hasn't tracked a regulatory change, and it retrieves and cites one of them with the same 94%-match confidence it shows for a clean answer. It has no way to know which document is current or authoritative. That is the trap.

What it doesn't do — and shouldn't

It surfaces and cites what the approved document says. A clinician decides. That boundary is deliberate.

WHAT IT DOES

Names the document, version and section it relied on, plus the verbatim quote

Shows a match signal and a "grounded in N sections" line

Refuses with zero sources and escalates to the Practice Principal when nothing clears the threshold

WHAT IT WON’T

Decide what the policy should be, or write a new one

Make a patient-specific clinical decision or interpret a grey case

Certify that following the document satisfies the RACGP Standards

Health information is "sensitive information" under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles, and a general practice answers to AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia, with practice accreditation against the RACGP Standards for general practices. A confidently wrong answer about records retention, a cold-chain breach or consent has real consequences for a patient and for the practice — so a Flag routes a wrong or stale answer to the document owner as a correction to the source, and the accountable clinician stays on anything consequential. It is a policy and SOP assistant, not a clinical decision aid.

What your data has to look like

One current, approved version of each SOP — section-numbered, clearly owned, with a visible version and date.

Typical readiness

across orgs we see, before the first job

One authoritative version of each SOP

Needs shaping

A named owner for "what's current"

Needs shaping

Documents with internal section numbering

Usual weak point

Visible version and update date on every document

Usual weak point

Documents in machine-readable text to index

Usually ready

The real first job

Most practices have the policies but not the discipline around them — the records SOP and the cold-chain policy live in two drives at two version numbers, the section numbering is inconsistent, and nobody owns the "is this still current" question. Establishing document control so there is exactly one live, owned, section-numbered version of each policy is usually a larger and more valuable piece of work than the retrieval layer on top — and it's about how you capture, version and approve documents, not a tool you buy. The concierge is only as trustworthy as the library beneath it.

Right fit if…

Busy or multi-site practice whose staff can't walk to the practice manager for every question

You have a genuine, approved SOP library staff need but don't read cover to cover

One current, owned, section-numbered version of each policy, with visible version and date

The same operational questions — records retention, cold-chain breach, consent — get asked dozens of times a week

Walk away if…

Your real procedures live in custom and corridor knowledge, not written approved SOPs

Several versions of the same policy scattered across shared drives with no single owner

Your policies are 40-page PDFs of unbroken prose with no section numbers to cite

You want a clinical decision aid, or a tool that certifies RACGP-Standards compliance for you

Open questions

The worried-buyer questions, answered straight

It only answers from sections that clear a relevance threshold, and it shows the document, version and section it relied on plus the verbatim quote — so the staff member checks the source, not just the summary, and a clinician approves, edits or flags every answer before it’s relied on. When nothing in the corpus matches (the demo’s medicinal-cannabis question) it refuses, returns zero sources, and escalates to the Practice Principal rather than inventing a rule. In a practice that answers to AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia, the safeguard is that the answer is never separated from its source, and a person stays on the decision.

Only as well as what you’ve actually indexed. Knowledge in someone’s head is simply a gap it will refuse on — the honest result, not a failure. The real risk is conflicting versions: if both the 2024 and 2026 infection-control policies are in the corpus it can cite the wrong one with full confidence. Getting to a single current, owned, section-numbered version of each approved SOP is usually the first piece of work in a practice, and it’s the part we help with before the retrieval layer earns its keep.

No. It answers the high-volume “where is it written” questions — the cold-chain breach procedure, how long to keep a minor’s records — so your practice manager and clinical governance lead aren’t the interruption desk, which recaptures their time for judgement work: interpreting a grey case, drafting a new procedure, handling an exception. It cannot decide what the policy should be, only repeat what the approved document says, and the policy ownership and the decision to act stay with the people accountable for them.

It’s only as current as your indexed corpus — it answers from the version you’ve loaded and shows the version and update date on every citation (the demo cites Patient Records & Privacy SOP v2, updated Feb 2026), so a stale answer is visible rather than hidden. It has no live feed of regulatory change. The discipline that makes it safe is a defined re-index step whenever a policy is approved or retired, with one named owner — without that, stale documents are the main way it goes wrong.

Health information is “sensitive information” under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles, which require you to secure it (APP 11), so this runs inside your own tenancy against your own document library — it isn’t a public chatbot and your policies aren’t used to train a shared model. The demo answers operational policy questions, not individual patient records. Exactly where the corpus and the model calls sit, and who can query them, is part of the scoping we do with you up front.

It’s a policy and SOP assistant, not a clinical decision aid. A question like prescribing medicinal cannabis — which runs through the TGA’s Special Access Scheme or Authorised Prescriber pathway and is regulated by AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia — isn’t in the approved operational corpus, so it refuses and escalates to the Practice Principal, exactly the behaviour you want. It should never be wired to patient-specific clinical decisions; that boundary is deliberate.

What it takes to build

3–4 weeks · 4 phases

Reused from template~70%

Bespoke to this skin~30%

stack · Claude · private RAG · review UI

What it would cost

Fixed scope, fixed price, fixed dates.

Bite-sized first piece

One contained change, low risk

Pilot build

Most builds land here

Embedded support

Scale on proof

Considering this for your org?

The honest place to start is a bite-sized first piece — one contained change, low risk. Tell us where the interruption tax hurts; we'll play it back, scope it, and show you what's possible against your own documents.

Book a call How we work