CoP compliance software organises the evidence a Medicare-participating provider must be able to produce, tracks deficiencies through correction, and maintains the quality programme records the conditions require. It manages evidence and correction workflow. It does not make you compliant, author a plan of correction, or influence a survey outcome.
Conditions of Participation are the terms of your Medicare participation, and a condition-level deficiency threatens it. Surveys arrive unannounced, complaint-driven, and increasingly focused on whether your quality programme is real rather than documented. Taction builds evidence and correction software for that reality, and we are direct that a survey outcome is not something any vendor can influence.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
It is evidence management and correction workflow built around the conditions that apply to your provider type, whether you are surveyed by a state agency or through an accrediting organisation holding deeming authority. The functions that matter are evidence currency, deficiency tracking, correction with credible follow-through, and quality programme records. It sits inside a wider healthcare compliance programme rather than standing alone as a separate discipline. We configure to your provider type specifically, because conditions for a hospital and conditions for a hospice share structure rather than substance and a single configuration serves neither well.
Conditions differ substantially between hospitals, critical access hospitals, home health, hospice, and other provider types. Provider type determines the evidence set, so the configuration follows yours specifically. Cross-type reuse is limited in practice.
Providers are surveyed by a state agency or through an accreditor with deeming authority, plus complaint and validation surveys. Survey pathway changes documentation expectations and timing considerably. Validation surveys add another expectation entirely.
Cited deficiencies are recorded at standard or condition level with scope, severity, and the required response timeline. Condition-level citations carry participation consequences and their own urgency. Scope and severity determine the response timeline.
Corrections are planned, assigned, evidenced, and monitored against the dates committed to in the submitted plan. Committed dates are what a revisit examines, so tracking them is the point. Dates are monitored to completion.
The conditions require a functioning quality assessment and performance improvement programme with evidence of activity. Programme evidence must show real projects, data, and leadership involvement. Contemporaneous recording is far more credible than retrospective assembly.
It does not make you compliant, author correction content, attest anything, or influence a survey. Compliance is your clinical and operational practice, evidenced rather than produced. Evidence management makes practice visible instead.
The two things that decide value here are evidence currency and correction discipline. Providers rarely fail because they lack a policy; they fail because the policy is expired, the training record is missing, or a committed correction date passed unnoticed. We build for both, connecting to your existing incident reporting and risk management systems rather than establishing a competing register nobody reconciles. We also connect to credentialing and learning systems rather than asking staff to maintain the same licensure record twice, because duplicated evidence contradicts itself eventually and a surveyor will find the copy that is out of date.
Conditions mapped to the evidence demonstrating them, with owners, currency, and location recorded per item. Evidence mapping is usually the most useful single deliverable. Unowned conditions surface immediately as the most urgent gap.
Citations recorded with level, scope, response deadline, assigned owners, and committed correction dates monitored to completion. Deadline tracking prevents the missed revisit commitment. Condition-level citations are escalated separately given their participation consequences.
Improvement projects, data collection, analysis, and leadership review recorded as programme evidence with our data analytics practice. Project evidence demonstrates activity rather than intent. Leadership involvement is recorded rather than asserted in a policy.
Licensure, competency, orientation, and privileging evidence surfaced with expiry visibility through our credentialing software work. Expiry visibility removes an avoidable citation. Records stay in their source system rather than being copied here.
Rapid document assembly for surveyor requests, request logging, and post-survey correction workflow alongside your compliance and security programme. Assembly speed matters during an unannounced survey. Every request is logged so answers stay consistent between days.
Where participation intersects with reported quality programmes, definitions align with your star rating work. Definition alignment prevents contradictory internal numbers. One definition then serves participation evidence and reported quality figures together.
We publish no figures on deficiency counts, survey outcomes, or correction timeliness, because those depend entirely on your practice, your staffing, and your leadership. What we deliver is instrumentation so your team measures impact against its own data. The benefits are evidence you can produce on demand, deficiencies tracked to genuine closure, and quality programme records that demonstrate activity. None of that substitutes for the care and operations the conditions actually govern. Read the items below as evidence discipline and correction reliability rather than as any claim about survey outcomes or deficiency counts.
Requested documents are located and assembled in minutes rather than hours. Assembly speed is what an unannounced survey genuinely tests. Surveyors arrive unannounced, so preparation time is not available to you.
Correction dates submitted in a plan are tracked, surfaced, and escalated before they pass. Date tracking protects you at the revisit. A missed date in a submitted plan is examined at revisit.
Licensure, competency, and policy expiry surface continuously rather than during survey preparation. Early warning removes the most avoidable citations entirely. Licensure and competency lapses are entirely preventable given enough visibility.
Projects, data, analysis, and leadership review are recorded as they happen. Contemporaneous records are far more credible than retrospective reconstruction. A programme documented after the fact rarely survives careful surveyor questioning.
Events, deficiencies, and corrections connect rather than living in parallel systems. Single register removes reconciliation nobody has capacity for. Deficiencies reference the events behind them rather than restating them separately again.
No software influences a survey outcome, and none should claim to. Survey results follow from practice, and evidence management only ensures practice is visible. We would rather say that than sell false assurance.
We start with your provider type and survey pathway, because those determine the evidence set entirely, then map evidence before proposing any build. Discovery is paid and time-boxed and produces an itemised fixed-scope estimate with an honest build or configure recommendation. Where your existing document and event systems cover much of this, we scope the gap. Delivery runs in short increments with your compliance and quality staff using working software throughout. Where your document and event systems already cover much of this, the honest scope narrows to deficiency and correction tracking, and we will say so before quoting anything larger.
Applicable conditions, survey pathway, and any accreditor deeming arrangement established at the outset. Pathway differences materially change documentation expectations. Deemed status changes who surveys you and what they expect to see.
Each condition mapped to demonstrating evidence, its owner, its currency, and the system holding it. Mapping output is useful to you regardless of what gets built. Ownership gaps appear immediately.
Document management, event, learning, and credentialing systems reviewed for existing coverage. Existing coverage commonly reduces the build to correction tracking alone. Buying a second document repository is the outcome we try to prevent.
Evidence control, deficiency and correction tracking, and quality programme records built in increments with integrations. Integration first avoids parallel registers. Parallel registers are avoided deliberately rather than reconciled later under pressure.
A real or simulated deficiency runs through the full correction and verification workflow. Cycle testing proves the workflow before you need it under pressure. Rehearsing it beforehand is considerably cheaper than learning during a survey.
Phased rollout with evidence ownership assigned per condition, then handover naming owners and escalation paths. Ownership assignment is the durable part. Escalation paths are named so a passing date reaches someone accountable.
We build evidence and workflow software. We are not a surveyor organisation, an accrediting body, or a compliance consultancy, and we hold no endorsement or relationship with CMS, any state survey agency, or any accreditor. Regulatory text is public, and we reference conditions by citation rather than interpreting them for you. Compliance covers HIPAA safeguards where evidence contains patient information, full audit trails, and clear allocation of every attestation to a named accountable person. Where interpretive guidance is ambiguous, we implement your compliance team’s reading and record which reading was applied.
CMS, state survey agencies, and accrediting organisations are referenced as market context. No relationship, endorsement, or approval by any of them is claimed or implied. We decline to imply otherwise anywhere in our material.
We decline to build systems that author plan of correction content or attestations. Corrections must be written and signed by leaders accountable for delivering them. A commitment nobody made will not survive a revisit.
Deficiency response, root cause, correction adequacy, and any allegation of compliance are leadership determinations. The software tracks and evidences them only. No allegation of compliance originates from software rather than a person.
We reference conditions by citation and implement your compliance team’s reading of them. Regulatory interpretation belongs to your counsel and compliance leadership. We record which interpretation was applied and when it changed.
Evidence containing patient information or confidential programme records carries role-based access with audit. Access control is designed per evidence type. Confidential programme records need a stricter model than general clinical access.
Every document version, citation, correction action, verification, and attestation is retained with author and timestamp. Integrity of record is what a revisit examines. Nothing is editable after attestation without an attributed, recorded change.
We have been building healthcare software since 2013, which is over 12 years, and we have delivered more than 200 healthcare projects across provider types including home health, hospice, and hospital settings. We are ISO 27001 certified and operate a certified management system ourselves. 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 existing systems cover most of this and the honest scope is narrower than the brief you brought us.
We have built software for hospital, home health, and hospice settings, so condition differences between provider types are familiar rather than researched during your project. Condition sets barely overlap between them in practice.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, so document control, audit evidence, and corrective action are daily practice for us rather than theoretical concepts. Surveillance audits keep us inside the discipline continuously rather than periodically.
We connect your document, event, learning, and credentialing systems instead of creating parallel registers. Fewer registers means fewer contradictions under survey. Contradictory copies of one record are worse than a single imperfect one.
We build software and provide no survey preparation consulting, mock surveys, or regulatory interpretation. Role clarity protects you from implied outcomes. We refer you elsewhere for consulting and mock surveys where needed.
Where your existing systems cover evidence control, we scope only correction tracking. Narrow scope costs us revenue and reduces what you maintain. The recommendation appears in the discovery report rather than in conversation.
Four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with delivery overlapping your hours through evidence mapping and rollout. Escalation reaches a named delivery lead rather than a shared support queue.
Pricing turns on provider type, how much you integrate versus build, and how many locations participate. The tiers below cover engineering. Third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure, data subscriptions, and hardware are separate from engineering cost and itemised clearly. Accreditation fees, survey costs, legal review, and compliance consulting are costs you hold directly with those parties, and none of them sit inside our engineering estimate at any tier. Provider type count matters more than location count for pricing, because two condition sets mean two evidence maps, two configurations, and two sets of correction workflows to maintain.
$40,000 to $80,000 for deficiency and correction tracking with committed date monitoring, evidence linkage, and reporting for one provider. Evidence mapping can follow later where your document system already covers it.
$80,000 to $200,000 for evidence mapping and control, deficiency and correction workflow, quality programme records, credential evidence, and survey response support. This tier covers most single-provider-type organisations that we are asked to scope.
Starting at $200,000 for multi-site or multi-provider-type operations with central governance, local execution, and integrations across several source systems. Provider type count drives the figure more than the number of locations.
A paid, time-boxed discovery phase produces a provider type and pathway review, evidence map, tooling inventory, build or configure recommendation, and an itemised estimate. The evidence map is yours whether or not we build.
Provider type count, location count, integration count, and existing document system quality. Multiple provider types raise cost because condition sets barely overlap. Field capture for dispersed staff adds engineering beyond a browser interface.
Budget annually for support, evidence map maintenance, integration monitoring, and reconfiguration when conditions or interpretive guidance change. Guidance updates arrive without notice. We treat those updates as scheduled work rather than as incidents.
If you cannot produce a requested document within an hour or track a committed correction date, start with an evidence map. A paid discovery phase gives you your applicable conditions mapped to demonstrating evidence with owners and locations, an inventory of what your existing systems cover, a correction tracking design your compliance team has reviewed, a build or configure recommendation, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. If your current tools cover most of it, you keep the map and spend nothing further with us.
These are the questions compliance officers, quality directors, and administrators raise before scoping this work. Several concern limits we hold firmly: we do not interpret regulation, author corrections, or influence survey outcomes. Others concern provider type differences, which are larger than most buyers expect. Where an answer depends on your survey pathway or existing systems, the discovery review settles it quickly and cheaply. We would rather disappoint you now about what software contributes to a survey outcome than let you believe a platform purchase reduces a risk that only clinical practice and staffing actually reduce.
No. It surfaces expired evidence, missing records, and overdue corrections, which removes a category of avoidable citation. Deficiencies about clinical practice, staffing, or care delivery are not evidence problems, and nothing we build addresses them. We would rather set that expectation now than have you discover it during a survey.
No, and we refuse to build it. A plan of correction is a commitment made by accountable leaders about what they will do and when, and it is examined at revisit. Software generating that content would produce commitments nobody actually made, which is both indefensible and dangerous to your participation.
No. We reference conditions by citation and build to your compliance team’s and counsel’s reading of them. We are not a regulatory consultancy and provide no interpretation, gap assessment, or mock survey services. Where you need those, we will say so and point you toward organisations that do that work.
Substantially different, to the point that hospital and hospice configurations share structure rather than content. That is why we establish provider type first and configure the evidence set specifically. A product claiming one configuration covers all provider types has not looked at the conditions carefully.
No. We hold no relationship, endorsement, or approval from CMS, any state survey agency, or any accrediting organisation, and we reference them as market context only. We build software and have no influence over survey scheduling, findings, deeming decisions, or outcomes of any kind. We would decline to imply otherwise.
Frequently the latter. If your document system handles policy control and your event system handles incidents, the genuine gap is usually deficiency and correction tracking with committed date monitoring. That is a smaller build, and we would rather scope it narrowly than sell a platform that duplicates working tools.
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.