Nursing handover
Metrics and safety contract exist. A dedicated matched baseline-vs-CareOS task runner is not built yet. Do not imply participant evidence exists.
The studies deliberately measure workflow behavior instead of asking whether the demo feels impressive. Speed only counts when safety and source verification remain intact.
Synthetic only. No names, no patient data, no clinical efficacy claim.
Two matched synthetic Infectiology cases. The participant performs the same morning-review task once across simulated KIS/LIS/medication/lab/documents and once in a unified source-linked CareOS view. Odd/even participant codes counterbalance order and case assignment.
Automatically captured: task time, systems opened, context switches and source opens. Observer-scored: errors, missed pending work, corrections, verification behavior, effort and safety stops.
Start physician paired session →This older A/B test does not represent the fragmented real-world baseline. It asks a narrower question: once source-linked CareOS context exists, does adding a source-linked agent draft improve the workflow without creating recommendation/source-truth confusion?
Run clinician agent A/B →Metrics and safety contract exist. A dedicated matched baseline-vs-CareOS task runner is not built yet. Do not imply participant evidence exists.
Metrics and cross-provider workflow contract exist. A dedicated matched baseline-vs-CareOS task runner is not built yet.
The machine-readable contract and aggregation logic live in app/time_returned_to_care.py and scripts/aggregate_time_returned_to_care.py.