Cath lab integration connects hemodynamic recording systems, imaging, implant inventory, and the clinical record so one procedure produces a structured record, a physician-attested report, and registry-ready data. It captures, assembles, and transmits. It does not interpret hemodynamic data, diagnose, or attest a report.
The cath lab generates rich data and exports almost none of it usefully. Hemodynamic values sit in a proprietary recorder, implant details are written on a label sheet, and a registrar reconstructs the whole case weeks later from a dictated narrative. Taction builds integration that captures the case once, at the point of care, in a form that the report, the chart, and the registry can all use.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
The work that decides whether this succeeds is capture friction and identity. If structured capture slows the case, staff will paper it and the whole data chain collapses to narrative dictation again. If the case, the patient, the images, and the implants do not stay linked, none of the downstream uses work. We build capture and identity first, then reporting, then registry assembly, in that order, with the lab staff who will use it involved throughout. Registry assembly comes last, because a submission built on reconstructed narrative inherits every gap the capture stage left behind.
Export interfaces built against each recording system’s conformance and licensing terms, with values normalised and timestamped. Vendor variance is documented explicitly rather than discovered during rollout. Licensing terms are established before design.
Interfaces designed for gloved, time-pressured use with defaults, templates, and minimal keystrokes. Capture speed is treated as the primary design constraint rather than as a usability nicety. Capture time is measured during rollout.
Implant and consumable capture connected to your medical inventory and equipment management systems. Inventory linkage serves recall response, cost analysis, and restocking together. Consumable usage feeds restocking as well as cost reporting afterwards.
Study identifiers linked so the report, the structured record, and the DICOM study in the archive stay associated. Accession linkage is the usual point of failure here. Mismatches surface as work items.
Draft generation, physician editing, attestation, and distribution to the chart and referring clinicians through our HL7 integration services. Preliminary and final states remain distinguishable. Addenda supersede visibly rather than appearing as a second document.
Submission records assembled, validated locally, and queued for registrar review, drawing on our clinical registry development practice. Local validation catches most rejections early. Rejections are grouped by cause so upstream problems become obvious.
Cath lab integration spans four flows that most programmes run disconnected: physiological data out of the recording system, structured documentation captured during the case, implant and device detail captured at use, and the resulting report and coded data reaching the chart and the registries. It sits inside a wider healthcare integration programme, and it depends on the same normalisation discipline as the rest of our clinical data integration practice, because a value nobody can locate again may as well not exist. Each of the four flows needs its own interface work.
Pressures, saturations, cardiac output values, and timings are exported from the recording system into a queryable store. Physiological capture follows each vendor’s supported export interface rather than a generic assumption.
Access, lesions, devices, and interventions captured as coded elements during the case, not reconstructed afterwards from narrative. Point-of-care capture must cost seconds or staff will revert to paper. Retrospective reconstruction loses detail permanently.
Implanted device identifiers, lot detail, and quantities recorded at use, linked to the patient and the procedure. Implant traceability is what makes a later recall response a query rather than an investigation.
The structured record produces a draft report the physician reviews, edits, and attests, which then reaches the chart through our EHR and EMR integration services. Attestation is always a physician action.
Coded case data assembles into registry submission records with validation before transmission. Derived submissions reduce abstraction work substantially without removing the registrar’s review of each case. Registrars still review every submitted case.
It does not interpret waveforms, grade a lesion, diagnose, select a device, or attest a report. Clinical interpretation belongs entirely to the interventional cardiologist performing the case. We state that boundary in writing.
We publish no figures on turnaround time, abstraction hours, or registry completeness, because those depend entirely on your case volume, your recording systems, and your current documentation practice. What we deliver is instrumentation so your team measures impact against its own data. The benefit is capturing the case once instead of three times: for the report, for the chart, and for the registry. That is a real reduction in duplicated effort and a real improvement in what the data can support afterwards. Read the items below as reduced duplication rather than as any claim about outcomes.
Structured capture during the case serves the report, the chart, and the registry from one entry. Single capture removes the transcription rounds where detail is lost. Downstream uses read the same record.
Hemodynamic values leave the recorder and become queryable alongside the rest of the case. Retrievable values support quality review, research, and registry work that narrative cannot. Values carry their timestamps and their source device.
Device identifiers and lots are linked to patient and procedure at the moment of use. Implant records turn a recall notice into a query rather than a manual chart review.
Draft reports assemble from structured data for physician review rather than awaiting dictation. Draft assembly shortens the path to an attested report in the chart. Referring clinicians receive it through the usual path.
Registrars review and complete rather than reconstruct each case from scratch. Reduced reconstruction is where the abstraction burden in this speciality actually sits. Reconstruction from dictated narrative is what disappears, not the registrar’s review.
Structured capture during a case costs the team seconds they do not feel they have. Capture friction is real, we measure it, and we design against it rather than denying it.
We start in the lab, watching real cases, because a requirements workshop cannot tell you what capture is possible during an intervention. Discovery is paid and time-boxed and produces an itemised fixed-scope estimate with an honest build or configure recommendation. Where your recording system vendor already offers a supported reporting and registry module, using it usually beats building around it, and we say so. Delivery runs in short increments with lab staff and cardiologists using working software each time. Lab staff use each increment during real sessions, because a capture design that survives a demonstration often fails a busy list.
We observe real procedures across case types and note every point where documentation happens or does not. Direct observation replaces assumptions about what staff can capture live. Case types differ more than expected.
Recording system, imaging, and inventory interfaces assessed for supported export, licensing, and version constraints. Supported interfaces are preferred over anything requiring a workaround we would have to maintain. Licensing occasionally blocks an approach.
Templates, defaults, and element sets designed with the nurses and technologists who will use them mid-case. Their involvement is a delivery condition rather than a courtesy. Templates remain editable by your programme.
Capture, hemodynamic ingestion, implant linkage, and identity reconciliation delivered in increments against real case data. Identity linkage is tested before reporting is built. Patient, case, accession, and implant linkage is proven before reporting is built.
Draft generation, attestation workflow, distribution, and registry assembly with local validation. Registrar review is designed into the flow rather than bolted on afterwards. Local validation runs before anything is queued for submission to a registry.
Phased rollout by case type with capture time monitored, then handover covering templates and validation versions. Template ownership passes to your programme. Handover covers templates, element definitions, validation versions, and named operational owners.
We build against each vendor’s supported interfaces and licensing terms rather than to a generic model of what a recording system should expose. Compliance covers HIPAA safeguards, implant traceability requirements, audit sufficient to reconstruct a case as reported, and clear allocation of every clinical determination to the physician. Registry programmes are referenced as market context: we build software supporting your submissions, and we make no claim of partnership, certification, or endorsement by any registry or society. We also record which device produced each value, because provenance is what makes physiological data usable in quality review or research afterwards.
Recording, imaging, and inventory interfaces follow vendor specifications and licence terms. Licensing limits are established during discovery rather than encountered at implementation. An unsupported export is a maintenance liability we decline to build.
The system stores and displays hemodynamic values. It does not interpret waveforms, calculate diagnostic conclusions, or grade findings, and interpretation remains the cardiologist’s professional judgement. Displayed values are labelled with their source and time.
Draft reports are generated from structured data and attested by the performing physician. No report is finalised, distributed, or coded without that individual attestation. Draft status is visible until attestation occurs.
Where a registry or payer requires an appropriateness or indication attestation, a clinician makes it. We decline to auto-populate or auto-justify those attestations from case data. Auto-population would produce a statement nobody actually made.
Device identifiers, lots, and quantities are recorded with the patient and procedure and retained permanently. Traceability records support recall response and post-market obligations. Recall response becomes a query rather than a manual chart review exercise.
Captured elements, edits, attestation, and submitted registry data are all retained with history. Case reconstruction answers what was recorded and reported at the time. Element definitions in force at the time are also retained.
We have been building healthcare software since 2013, which is over 12 years, and we have delivered more than 200 healthcare projects. We built our own EHR platform, Voyant Health, and FDA-registered applications, Revive Ease and PainKare, so procedure documentation and regulated build discipline are established practice. We are ISO 27001 certified, our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field, and we work from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento. We will also tell you when your recording vendor’s own module already covers this.
We measure how long structured capture takes during real cases and report it. Measured friction is the only way to know whether staff will keep using the system. Reported friction guides template revision.
We have built FDA-registered applications, Revive Ease and PainKare, so documented requirements, traceability, and verification practice are how we work by default. That practice carries into interface verification and controlled release of changes.
Building Voyant Health means we understand how procedure reports must appear, supersede, and reach referring clinicians inside a working chart. Preliminary and final report states are presented distinctly rather than merged.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, with documented access control, encryption, and change control that stands up to a customer security review without improvisation. Interface credentials and their rotation practice are documented for external review.
If your recording vendor’s module covers reporting and registry adequately, we recommend it. That advice loses us the project and saves you an interface estate. The recommendation appears in the discovery report in writing.
Four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with delivery overlapping your hours during lab observation and phased rollout. Escalation reaches a named delivery lead rather than a support queue.
Cath lab pricing turns on how many recording vendors are involved, whether registry assembly is in scope, and how many labs you run. The tiers below cover engineering. Third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure, data subscriptions, and hardware are separate from engineering cost and itemised clearly. Recording system interface licensing in particular is a vendor cost that varies widely and occasionally blocks an approach entirely, so we establish it during discovery and quote it as its own line. Registry participation fees and any submission tooling are programme costs quoted as their own lines rather than folded into engineering.
$40,000 to $80,000 for structured capture and hemodynamic ingestion in one lab with report drafting and chart write-back. One lab, one recording vendor, with registry assembly deferred to a later phase.
$80,000 to $200,000 for capture, hemodynamic and imaging linkage, implant and inventory capture, reporting, distribution, and registry assembly with validation. This tier covers most single-site cardiovascular programmes we are asked to scope.
Starting at $200,000 for multi-lab services with several recording vendors, consistent element definitions, multi-registry assembly, and research access controls. Recording vendor count and registry obligations drive the figure more than case volume.
A paid, time-boxed discovery phase produces case observation findings, a vendor interface and licensing assessment, a build or configure recommendation, and an itemised estimate. The interface assessment is yours whether or not we build.
Recording vendor count, interface licensing, lab count, registry obligations, and inventory system age. Interface licensing occasionally costs more than the engineering around it. Older recorders sometimes offer no supported export at all.
Budget annually for vendor version changes, registry dictionary updates, template maintenance, and EHR upgrade regression testing. Recording system upgrades frequently break working exports. Regression testing after a recorder upgrade is scheduled rather than reactive work.
If your cath lab data lives in a recorder nobody can query and your registry work is reconstruction from dictation, start with observation and an interface assessment. A paid discovery phase gives you findings from real cases about what can be captured live, a vendor interface and licensing assessment for your recording, imaging, and inventory systems, a build or configure recommendation, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. If your vendor’s module covers it, you keep the assessment and spend nothing further with us.
These are the questions cardiovascular service line leaders, lab managers, and informatics teams raise before scoping this work. Several concern boundaries that matter professionally: what the software interprets and what the cardiologist interprets. Others concern vendor interfaces, where licensing sometimes decides the approach before engineering does. Where an answer depends on your recording system and version, the interface assessment in discovery resolves it quickly and cheaply. We would rather tell you during discovery that your vendor’s module covers this than build a parallel estate you then maintain alongside theirs for years.
Usually, through whatever export interface the vendor supports for your product and version, and sometimes only under a separate licence. Capability and licensing vary considerably between vendors and generations, so we establish both during discovery rather than promising a mechanism that may not be enabled or permitted for you.
No. It stores, displays, and transmits values and coded elements captured during the case. Interpretation of physiological data, lesion assessment, and every diagnostic conclusion belong to the interventional cardiologist, and the attested report is theirs. We do not build calculation that produces or implies a clinical conclusion.
No, and we would distrust that claim. Structured capture means registrars review and complete rather than reconstruct, which is a genuine reduction in effort. Registry data dictionaries still contain elements that require judgement and chart review, and the registrar remains responsible for what is submitted.
Only if it costs seconds, which is why we observe real procedures first and measure capture time during rollout. Where an element cannot be captured live without slowing the case, we say so and capture it immediately afterwards rather than pretending the workflow supports it.
No. Where a registry or payer requires an attestation about indication or appropriateness, a clinician makes that statement personally. Auto-populating it from case data would produce an attestation nobody actually made, which is both a compliance problem and an integrity problem we will not create for you.
Often, yes, and we will say so during discovery. Custom work earns its cost with multiple recording vendors across sites, registry obligations your vendor covers poorly, implant and inventory linkage they do not offer, or write-back into an EHR their module handles inadequately. That assessment happens before any build is quoted.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Our expert reaches out shortly after receiving your request and analyzing your requirements.
If needed, we sign an NDA to protect your privacy.
We request additional information to better understand and analyze your project.
We schedule a call to discuss your project, goals. and priorities, and provide preliminary feedback.
If you're satisfied, we finalize the agreement and start your project.