Get involved

Six organisations. First cohort.

There is no open, shared way of turning decades of clinical correspondence into structured, coded, source-traceable history. This is a working implementation of one, and it is further along than a prototype. What it needs now is the organisations and specialists to make it real in more than one place — and I am looking for the first six.

Founding implementers are invited into the private repository. Not a source drop: the actual repo, with issues, releases and the ability to send a pull request.

The proposition

Not "use my software". Help decide what it becomes.

A founding implementer is not a customer and not a pilot site. It is an organisation that deploys the framework against its own records, tells me honestly what happened, and helps decide what gets built next. In return it gets repo access, direct access to me, and influence over the roadmap while the roadmap is still soft enough to move.

What you bring

  • A real deployment inside your own governed environment
  • Real records — correspondence, discharge summaries, reports
  • One named technical contact I can actually talk to
  • A written account of what worked and what broke
  • Your own clinical, privacy and regulatory governance

What you get

  • An invitation to the private repository — issues, releases, pull requests
  • The full framework, free, under PolyForm Internal Use 1.0.0
  • Direct access to me — no ticket queue, no drip campaign
  • Real influence over which module gets hardened first
  • Named as a founding implementer, if you want to be
  • Co-authorship on the methods paper, where you contributed
  • A seat in whatever governance structure this grows into

Nothing here is contractual and no money changes hands in either direction, at any point.

Why six

Small enough that everyone gets a real answer.

A student pulling it apart for a thesis, a hospital IT team coding twenty years of correspondence, and a national terminology group evaluating the mapping approach need very different things from me. Six is the number I can serve properly while the framework is still young enough for their feedback to change its shape. Beyond the cohort it stays free to anyone who asks — the cohort is about attention, not access.

Specific asks

What's actually needed, in order.

These are the gaps I cannot close alone. Each is a real, finishable contribution, and each one exists as an issue in the repo once you are in it.

Real records
A health service with an archive of clinical correspondence and the governance to run extraction against it. Everything to date has been proven on synthetic data. The first honest failure report on real records is worth more than any feature.
Terminology review
A clinical terminologist to review the SNOMED CT resolution strategy in module 05 and the local mapping index — specifically the cases where a technically valid concept is the wrong clinical interpretation, and how the review queue should govern that.
Anatomical assets
A medical illustrator. The layer architecture is sound and the registration works; the draughtsmanship is mine and it shows. Replacing the artwork touches nothing upstream, so this is a discrete, creditable piece of work with a clear specification behind it.
Outside Australia
An implementer working against dm+d, RxNorm or another national release, in another regulatory context. A framework that has only ever run in one country has not been proven to be international.
Clinical safety
Someone who assesses clinical software professionally, to review the safety framework — negation, copied-forward problem lists, family history, date ambiguity, and where the boundary of a communication aid actually sits.
Medicines
Anyone who has done AMT or dm+d medicines coding at scale. Medication history is the most requested addition and the one with the sharpest failure modes. I would rather design it with someone who has done it than guess.

How it starts

A conversation, not an onboarding funnel.

1 · Tell me who you are

Two minutes on a form: who, what kind of organisation, which country, how soon, and what you would point it at. That last field is the one I read twice. Every field is listed here if you want to see it first.

2 · We talk

I reply personally. We work out whether what you want to do and what the framework currently does are the same thing, and what would need to be true for you to proceed.

3 · You get the repo

An invitation to the private repository, the documentation, and me. It runs inside your infrastructure, against your records, under your governance. No patient data ever reaches me.

4 · You tell me what happened

Even a paragraph, months later — or an issue, which is better. Where you pointed it, what you changed, whether it survived contact with real records. That is the whole reason for the cohort.

Join the first cohort Just a quick question?

Being straight with you

What you would be joining.

This is a working implementation maintained by one person. You are entitled to price that risk.

The framework is functional and the architecture is settled, but it has not yet been validated against real clinical records outside my own testing, and anatomical coverage is incomplete. I would rather you learn that here than three months into an evaluation.

The licence is perpetual and irrevocable for the version you receive, so nothing you deploy can be taken away from you. My intention is that if the project is ever unmaintained for a sustained period, the grant broadens to a permissive open-source licence so implementers are not stranded. The precise trigger is still being drafted — ask me and I will tell you exactly where it has landed.

The point of a founding cohort is to stop this depending on one person. That is the risk, and joining is what reduces it.