DNV compliance software supports hospitals accredited under a quality-management-system model: controlled documents, an internal audit programme, corrective and preventive action tracking, and management review evidence. It manages the system’s records. It does not run your quality system, close corrective actions, or determine that one was effective.
Accreditation on a quality management system model differs from a checklist model in one demanding respect: the standard expects a functioning system, not a completed binder. Annual surveys mean evidence has to be continuous rather than assembled every third year. Taction builds the record-keeping that makes a genuine quality system demonstrable, and we say plainly that software cannot create one.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
It supports the quality management system that a management-system accreditation model requires: document control, internal audits on a planned cycle, nonconformity handling, corrective and preventive action with effectiveness verification, management review, and the clinical standards evidence that sits alongside all of it. It belongs inside a wider healthcare compliance programme and connects to your existing risk management practice rather than replacing it. The clinical standards evidence resembles any accreditation problem, and the management system apparatus is what distinguishes this model, so we build that half first and connect the clinical half to systems you already run.
The system’s documented information: policies, procedures, records, and the relationships between them. Documented information control is the backbone of any management-system accreditation model. Relationships between documents matter as much as the documents themselves.
Audits planned on a cycle, scheduled, conducted, and recorded with findings and auditor independence maintained. Audit planning is where organisations new to this model most often fall short. Independence is recorded per audit.
Findings recorded, root cause analysed, actions taken, and effectiveness verified before closure, alongside your incident reporting data. Effectiveness verification is a required step, not optional. Root cause is captured as reasoning, not a dropdown.
Periodic leadership review of system performance with inputs, decisions, and actions recorded. Review evidence demonstrates that leadership actually governs the system. Inputs, decisions, and resulting actions are all retained as review evidence.
Annual survey cycles mean evidence must be current continuously rather than assembled periodically. Continuous evidence changes the software requirement fundamentally. Seasonal preparation does not work when a survey happens every single year.
It does not operate your quality system, judge root cause, close an action, or determine effectiveness. Those judgements belong to the people accountable for the process. We record their judgements and produce none.
The build has two halves. One is the management system apparatus: documents, audits, nonconformities, corrective actions, management review. The other is clinical standards evidence, which resembles any accreditation evidence problem. We build the management system half first, because its records are what the accreditation model actually inspects, and because organisations transitioning to this model usually have the clinical evidence and lack the system discipline around it. Organisations transitioning to this model usually hold the clinical evidence already and lack the system discipline around it, which is why we sequence the work in that order rather than the reverse.
Controlled documents with owners, revision history, approval records, distribution control, and review cycles enforced. Distribution control matters under this model in a way checklist models do not require. Superseded versions remain retrievable.
Audit schedule, scope, auditor assignment with independence tracking, checklists your team authors, and finding capture. Independence tracking prevents the audit nobody can rely on. Overdue audits escalate rather than quietly slipping to the next quarter.
Nonconformity intake, containment, root cause analysis capture, action planning, and scheduled effectiveness verification. Verification scheduling stops actions closing on completion rather than on evidence. Containment is recorded separately from the permanent corrective action taken.
Review inputs assembled automatically from audit, nonconformity, and performance data via our data analytics practice. Input assembly is where review preparation time disappears. Decisions and assigned actions are captured during the review itself.
Standards evidence, competency records, and equipment documentation linked through our equipment management integrations. Evidence linkage replaces the annual document hunt. Competency currency and calibration records surface with their expiry dates visible.
Information security and data governance evidence connected via our security audit and data governance practices. Programme alignment avoids three separate evidence stores. Our compliance and security practice covers the overlap deliberately.
We publish no figures on survey findings, nonconformity closure rates, or accreditation outcomes, because those depend entirely on your processes, your staffing, and your leadership engagement. What we deliver is instrumentation so your team measures impact against its own data. The benefits are structural: an audit programme that actually runs on schedule, corrective actions that close on evidence, and management review that assembles itself from real data rather than from a coordinator’s weekend. Read the items below as system discipline rather than as any claim about survey findings or accreditation outcomes, neither of which any vendor can influence.
Schedules, assignments, and overdue audits are visible with independence maintained. Programme visibility is the difference between an audit cycle and an audit intention. Auditors receive their assignments rather than discovering them at quarter end.
Effectiveness verification is scheduled at closure, so actions cannot quietly close on completion alone. Verification discipline is exactly what this accreditation model examines. Verification is scheduled at closure and assigned to a named person.
Management review inputs are drawn from live audit, nonconformity, and performance data. Automatic assembly returns days of preparation time to your quality team. Inputs arrive current rather than as figures recompiled by hand each period.
Revision, approval, distribution, and review currency are all traceable per document. Distribution traceability answers whether staff had the current version. Whether staff held the current version is answerable rather than assumed.
Annual survey cycles are met from routine operation rather than seasonal preparation. Continuous currency removes the annual scramble entirely. Routine operation produces the evidence that an annual survey cycle requires.
Software cannot create a quality system where none exists. System maturity comes from process ownership and leadership attention that no platform supplies. We say so before quoting, even when it delays the engagement.
We start by assessing how mature your management system actually is, because organisations that have just chosen this accreditation model often need process design before software. Discovery is paid and time-boxed and produces an itemised fixed-scope estimate with an honest build or configure recommendation. If your existing document system and event register cover most of this, we scope the gap. Delivery runs in short increments with your quality team using working software throughout. Where the honest answer is that process design should come before any software, you will hear that during discovery rather than after a statement of work.
We assess document control, audit practice, and corrective action discipline as they currently operate. Maturity assessment sometimes concludes that process design should precede any build. Software cannot substitute for a process that does not exist.
Document management, event reporting, learning, and equipment systems reviewed for what they already provide. Existing coverage frequently reduces the build considerably. Document systems in particular often cover more than the quality team realises.
Cycle, scope, independence rules, and checklist ownership designed with your quality leadership. Programme design is a management decision we support rather than make. Cycle length and scope are leadership choices rather than technical defaults.
Document control, audit, nonconformity, corrective action, and review assembly built in increments with integrations. Integration first prevents parallel registers accumulating. Parallel registers are avoided deliberately rather than reconciled later at survey time.
A full audit and corrective action cycle runs in the new system alongside the current process. Parallel running tests the workflow under real deadlines. Real deadlines expose workflow problems that a demonstration never will.
Phased rollout with checklist and template ownership transferred, then handover naming owners per area. Ownership transfer keeps your system independent of us. Checklists and templates are edited by your quality team afterwards.
We build records and workflow software for a management system. We are not an accreditation body, a certification body, or an accreditation consultancy, and we hold no endorsement or partnership with DNV or any other accrediting organisation. Standards text belongs to the standards body, so our software references your licensed copy rather than reproducing it. Compliance covers HIPAA safeguards where records contain patient information, full audit trails, and clear allocation of every determination to a person. Where a management system standard and an accreditation requirement overlap, we record evidence once and reference it from both.
DNV and NIAHO are referenced as market context. No partnership, endorsement, certification, or approval by any accrediting or certification body is claimed or implied. We would decline to imply otherwise anywhere.
Accreditation standards and management system standards are copyrighted by their publishers. Your licensed copy is referenced by clause identifier rather than embedded in our software. Redistribution inside a product would expose both of us.
Root cause, action adequacy, effectiveness, and audit conclusions are process owner and auditor determinations. The software records them and produces none of them. No conclusion in the system originates from software rather than a person.
Corrective actions do not close on task completion alone. Closure requires recorded evidence and a scheduled effectiveness verification performed by a named person. Completion and effectiveness are recorded as two separate states entirely.
Audit assignment tracks independence from the area audited. Independence records are part of the audit evidence rather than an internal courtesy. An audit conducted by the area’s own manager is not evidence.
Document revisions, audit records, nonconformities, actions, and review minutes are retained immutably with authors. Record integrity is what an annual survey inspects. Amendments are additive, so the original record remains inspectable afterwards.
We have been building healthcare software since 2013, which is over 12 years, and we have delivered more than 200 healthcare projects. We are ISO 27001 certified, so we operate a certified management system ourselves: document control, internal audit, corrective action, and management review are practices we maintain rather than concepts we describe. 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 process design should precede any software purchase.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, and our certifications page sets out what that covers. Living inside an audited system shapes how we build one. Surveillance audits keep us inside that discipline continuously.
We understand the difference between a completed action and a verified effective one. That distinction is where management-system accreditation models concentrate their attention. Verification design follows from understanding that distinction properly.
We connect to your document, event, and learning systems rather than creating parallel records. Fewer registers means fewer contradictions at survey time. Contradictory records are worse at survey than a single imperfect one.
We build software and provide no accreditation consulting, gap assessment, or survey representation. Role clarity matters when a vendor could easily imply more. We refer you elsewhere for consulting where that is what you need.
Where your management system needs process design rather than software, we say so first. That advice delays revenue and produces a system that works. It appears in the discovery report in writing.
Four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with delivery overlapping your hours through parallel audit cycles and rollout. Escalation reaches a named delivery lead rather than a shared support queue.
Pricing turns on your system’s maturity, how much you integrate versus build, and site count. The tiers below cover engineering. Third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure, data subscriptions, and hardware are separate from engineering cost and itemised clearly. Standards licensing, accreditation fees, surveyor costs, and any accreditation consulting are costs you hold directly with those organisations, and none of them sit inside our engineering estimate at any tier. Where your organisation already licenses a document management or learning platform, we integrate with it and that licence stays yours rather than appearing anywhere inside our engineering estimate.
$40,000 to $80,000 for an audit programme and corrective action workflow with effectiveness verification and reporting at one hospital. Document control can follow later where your existing system covers it adequately.
$80,000 to $200,000 for document control, audit programme, nonconformity and corrective action, management review assembly, and clinical standards evidence. This tier covers most single-hospital quality systems that we are asked to scope.
Starting at $200,000 for multi-site systems with central governance, local execution, integrations across several source systems, and consolidated review reporting. Site count and integration count drive the figure more than standards breadth.
A paid, time-boxed discovery phase produces a system maturity assessment, tooling inventory, audit programme design, build or configure recommendation, and an itemised estimate. The maturity assessment is yours whether or not we build.
Site count, integration count, system maturity, and existing document system quality. Low system maturity raises cost because process design has to happen first. Process design work is quoted separately and honestly where it is needed.
Budget annually for support, checklist and template maintenance, integration monitoring, and reconfiguration when standards revisions arrive. Standards revisions recur on the publisher’s schedule. Revisions are absorbed as reconfiguration rather than as a fresh project.
If your internal audits happen when someone remembers and your corrective actions close on completion, start with a maturity assessment. A paid discovery phase gives you an honest read on your document control, audit practice, and corrective action discipline, an inventory of what your existing systems already cover, an audit programme design your leadership can adopt, a build or configure recommendation, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. If process design should come first, you will hear that before you budget for software.
These are the questions quality directors and compliance leaders raise before scoping this work, particularly organisations that have recently chosen a management-system accreditation model. Several concern the gap between software and a working quality system, where we would rather be blunt early. Others concern our role, which is building software rather than providing accreditation services. Where an answer depends on your current maturity, the discovery assessment settles it. We would rather tell you that your quality system needs process work before software than take a build fee for records that describe a system nobody is running.
No. We build software and hold no partnership, endorsement, certification, or approval from DNV or any other accrediting or certification body. We reference accreditation programmes and management system standards as market context, and we provide no accreditation consulting, gap assessment, or survey representation. We will point you toward organisations that do that work.
No. It gives you the records, workflow, and visibility a working system needs. The system itself is process ownership, audit discipline, and leadership review, which are organisational rather than technical. Where those are missing, we recommend process design first and say so before quoting a build.
Because a management-system model asks whether your corrective action worked, not whether the task was completed. An action closed on completion alone is the most common finding in this area. We build closure to require recorded evidence plus a scheduled verification performed later by a named person.
Checklist models concentrate on standards evidence. A management-system model additionally requires document control with distribution, a planned internal audit programme with auditor independence, nonconformity handling with root cause, and periodic management review. Those components are the substance of the build rather than additions to it.
No. Accreditation standards and management system standards are copyrighted by their publishers, so the software references clauses by identifier and links to your organisation’s own licensed copy. Redistributing that text inside a product would expose both of us, so we designed around it deliberately. The clause-reference approach works well in practice.
Often, yes. If it handles revision control, approval routing, distribution, and review dates, we integrate rather than replace it and focus the build on the audit programme, corrective action, and review assembly. A second document repository creates contradictory versions, which is worse than the problem it purports to solve.
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.