Taction Software Research is the home of our original studies and analysis on healthcare technology, covering healthcare AI, interoperability, telehealth, compliance and revenue cycle software, published with clear methods and stated limitations so healthcare leaders, product teams and journalists can rely on the findings and use them in their own decisions.
This hub collects our research and analytical work in one place, alongside the practical guides in our resources library. Our first full research report is in preparation and will be published here when it is complete. Until then, this page explains our research standards and focus areas, and links to existing analysis that healthcare teams already use for planning.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
Healthcare leaders make technology decisions with limited time and often limited evidence. Vendor marketing is plentiful, but independent, practical data on what works in real projects is much harder to find. Our research program aims to help close that gap by sharing what we learn from delivering healthcare software, combined with structured surveys, benchmarks and analysis. We are a software company with commercial interests, so we are open about our methods, sources and limitations. That transparency lets readers judge the findings for themselves and use them confidently in strategy, budgeting, procurement and product planning work.
Our research aims to give healthcare organizations practical, evidence-based answers to questions they face when planning technology projects, such as what AI features cost to run, how long integrations take and which approaches clinicians actually adopt in daily work. Practical value guides every study.
We publish work under this hub only when it follows a defined method, such as a survey, benchmark, structured analysis of public data or aggregated project data. Opinion pieces and how-to guides remain on our blog, where they are clearly presented as guidance.
Our research is written for healthcare executives, product leaders, CTOs, clinical informatics teams, compliance officers, investors and journalists. Each report includes a short summary for busy readers and a methods section for those who want to examine how the findings were produced.
Our blog offers practical guides and opinions based on experience. Research publications go further, with defined questions, documented methods, stated sample sizes and explicit limitations, so findings can be cited and compared over time. Both are useful, but they serve different purposes and should be read differently.
Taction Software builds healthcare software, so we have an interest in the topics we study. Every report will state this clearly, describe how we limited bias and separate findings from any description of our own services, which appear only where clearly labeled.
Our first full research report is currently in preparation and will be published on this page when it is complete. Readers who want to be notified, or who would like to contribute data or interviews, can contact us using the details later on this page.
Research is only useful if readers can trust how it was produced. We have defined standards that every publication in this hub must meet before release, covering methods, data sources, privacy, limitations and corrections. These standards are designed to make our work transparent and repeatable, so others can understand exactly what was measured and challenge our conclusions where they disagree. They also protect the people and organizations who contribute data, especially when information comes from healthcare settings. The six standards below apply to every report, benchmark and dataset we publish under the Taction Software Research name, without exception.
Every publication describes how data was collected, analyzed and interpreted, including definitions of key terms. A clear methodology lets readers judge whether findings apply to their own situation and allows other researchers to repeat or extend the work with their own data.
We state the sample size, how participants or data sources were selected and when data was collected. Small or specialized samples are described honestly, so readers do not mistake findings from a limited group for conclusions about the entire healthcare industry.
We never publish protected health information. Project data used in research is aggregated and de-identified, survey responses are anonymized unless participants agree otherwise, and our handling of personal data follows our privacy policy. Contributors always know how their information will be used before they share it.
Every report includes a limitations section explaining what the findings cannot show, potential sources of bias and areas where results should be interpreted carefully. Stating limitations upfront helps readers use findings responsibly rather than overstating what the evidence supports. No study answers everything.
Findings are presented without promotional language. Where our services are mentioned, they appear in a clearly labeled section separate from the results, so readers can rely on the analysis without wondering whether conclusions were shaped to support a sales message.
If we find an error after publication, we correct it and add a dated note explaining the change. Readers who spot a possible error can contact us, and we review every report so that published findings remain accurate over time.
We focus our research on areas where our project experience gives us useful context and where healthcare organizations most often lack reliable data. These areas reflect the questions our clients ask us repeatedly during planning, procurement and delivery. Focusing on a limited set of topics lets us build depth over time and repeat studies to show how the market is changing. The six focus areas below guide our research priorities. Each links to related service or guidance pages, where you can see how our practical work in that area informs the questions we choose to study.
We study how clinical AI performs in real workflows, what it costs per task and how organizations evaluate and govern it. This area connects closely with our AI in healthcare practice and the practical questions our clients ask before adopting AI features.
We examine how long EHR integrations take, which approaches succeed, and where projects stall. Our EHR integration services provide the practical context for this research, including FHIR, HL7 and vendor program experience. Findings will help teams plan integration timelines and budgets more realistically.
We look at how virtual care programs are designed, integrated and adopted, and what separates successful programs from stalled ones. Our telemedicine app development work informs the questions we study in this area. We also study how virtual care programs connect to existing clinical systems.
We research how healthcare organizations and vendors approach HIPAA safeguards, security reviews and AI governance, and where common gaps appear. Our HIPAA compliant app development practice shapes our understanding of these challenges in practice. Findings will highlight practical fixes, not only problems.
We study how analytics and automation affect denials, collections and financial visibility for providers. Our revenue cycle analytics platform work gives us practical context for the data questions finance teams care about most. We focus on measurable outcomes that finance leaders can verify themselves.
We examine how healthcare software products are planned, built and launched, including timelines, team structures and common causes of delay. Our healthcare app development guide reflects the practical lessons behind this research area. Findings will help teams set realistic plans before development begins.
While our first full research report is in preparation, we have published several analytical resources that healthcare teams use for planning and comparison. These are not formal research reports under the standards described above, but they are structured, reference-style pieces that bring together information in a form that is easier to use than scattered sources. We list them here so readers can find them in one place. As our research program grows, some of these topics may be expanded into full studies with documented methods, larger samples and repeat editions that track changes over time.
Our AI scribe benchmark page compares approaches to ambient clinical documentation for organizations evaluating AI scribes. It is a useful starting point for teams building a shortlist before running their own evaluation on real clinical tasks. Review its date before relying on it.
Our overview of BAA eligible LLM providers summarizes which language model options can be used with protected health information under a business associate agreement. Coverage changes, so always confirm current terms directly with each provider. We review this resource as provider terms change.
Our analysis of LLM cost per clinical task explains how to estimate what AI features cost in real clinical workflows, using cost per task rather than list prices, so finance and product teams can compare options fairly. Use it alongside your own measurements.
Our state of AI in US healthcare overview summarizes adoption patterns, common use cases and barriers. It gives leadership teams context for planning AI initiatives and comparing their progress with the wider market. Use it as background context rather than a formal benchmark for decisions.
Our article on the top AI healthcare use cases by ROI helps organizations prioritize AI investments by comparing where use cases tend to deliver value relative to their effort, risk and implementation complexity. Actual returns depend on each organization’s data and workflows.
Our guide to healthcare AI use cases describes where AI is being applied across clinical, operational and administrative work, giving teams a broad map of options before they narrow their focus to specific projects. It is a starting point for internal discussions.
Producing reliable research takes a disciplined process, from choosing the right question to publishing results and keeping them current. Our process is designed to keep studies focused on questions healthcare organizations actually need answered, while protecting the quality and integrity of the findings. Each stage has defined responsibilities and review steps, and no report is published until it has passed internal review against the standards described earlier. The six stages below describe how a typical Taction Software research project moves from idea to publication, and how we keep findings useful after release.
Research questions come from patterns we see in client projects, industry discussions and requests from readers. We prioritize questions where reliable data is scarce, decisions are expensive and our experience gives us useful context for designing the study and interpreting the results.
We define the method, sample, data sources, measures and analysis plan before collecting any data. Planning in advance reduces the risk of shaping conclusions after seeing results, and it makes the methods section of each report clear and complete. Plans are documented before data collection begins.
Data may come from surveys, interviews, public datasets, controlled benchmarks or aggregated, de-identified project information. Participants give informed consent, and any project data is used only with appropriate permissions and privacy protections in place. Participants can withdraw before publication if they change their mind.
Our analysts process the data, then subject matter experts review the findings for accuracy and clinical or technical sense. Where relevant, we invite outside reviewers to challenge our interpretation before publication, which strengthens the final report. Reviewer feedback is recorded and addressed.
Reports are published on this page with a summary, full findings, methods and limitations. Key findings are written in plain language for busy readers, while detailed sections serve analysts, researchers and journalists who need more depth. Every report is clearly dated.
Where topics change quickly, we plan repeat studies to track trends over time. Earlier editions remain available, with clear dates, so readers can compare results across years and see how the healthcare technology landscape is developing. Changes in method are explained.
We want our research to be useful beyond our own website, so we encourage healthcare organizations, journalists, educators and researchers to reference and share it. Clear citation helps readers find the original source, understand the methods and check the context behind any figure. We ask only that findings are represented accurately and that our limitations are respected, especially when figures are summarized or quoted in different contexts. The guidance below explains how to cite our work, reuse charts and request additional detail, and when to contact us before using research in commercial materials or publications.
Cite Taction Software Research with the report title, publication date and the page address of the report. Including the date matters because findings may change in later editions, and readers should be able to identify which version you referenced. Accurate citation helps everyone.
You may reuse charts and figures for editorial, educational and internal purposes with clear attribution and a link to the source report. Please do not alter data or remove context in ways that change the meaning of the findings. Thank you for linking back.
Journalists may quote findings and request additional commentary from our team. If you need clarification on a figure, the methodology or the limitations of a study, contact us before publication and we will provide the information you need. We respect your deadlines.
Educators and researchers may use our findings in teaching materials and academic work with appropriate citation. If you need more detail about methods or aggregated data for academic purposes, contact us to discuss what can be shared. We welcome academic collaboration.
Some readers need more detail than a report includes, such as breakdowns by segment. We share additional aggregated information where it does not compromise participant privacy or confidentiality, and we explain clearly when a request cannot be met. Privacy always takes priority.
If you want to use our research in commercial materials, such as sales presentations or marketing, please contact us first. We review requests to make sure findings are presented accurately and that our name is not used to imply endorsement.
Good research depends on input from people working in healthcare every day. We invite healthcare leaders, clinicians, product teams and technology professionals to contribute to our studies through surveys, interviews and data partnerships. Participation helps shape research that reflects real experience rather than assumptions, and contributors receive findings before or at publication. We protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality, and we never use research participation as a sales opportunity. The options below describe how you can take part, what we ask of contributors and how we handle the information you share with our research team.
Our surveys take a short amount of time to complete and focus on practical questions about technology decisions, costs and outcomes. Responses are anonymized and reported only in aggregate, so individual organizations cannot be identified from published results. Participation is entirely voluntary.
We interview healthcare and technology leaders to add depth and context to quantitative findings. Interviewees can choose to be quoted by name, quoted anonymously or contribute background information only, and we confirm quotes before publication. Interviews can be held remotely at a convenient time.
Organizations with relevant data, such as integration timelines or AI evaluation results, can partner with us on specific studies. Partnerships follow written agreements covering privacy, de-identification, data use and how contributions are acknowledged in the final report. Partners review how their data is described.
Participants receive a copy of the findings when they are published, and in some cases an early summary. This gives contributors a direct benefit and lets them compare their own organization’s experience with the wider group. Many participants find this comparison valuable.
If there is a question your organization struggles to answer, suggest it as a research topic. Reader suggestions help us prioritize studies that will be genuinely useful to healthcare teams making difficult technology decisions. We review every suggestion our team receives.
Contact us through our contact us page and mention research participation, including which option interests you. Our research team will explain the current studies, what participation involves and how your information will be protected. There is no obligation to continue after initial questions.
These are the questions readers, journalists and potential participants ask most often about Taction Software Research. The answers explain what our research covers, how it is produced, how to use and cite it and how to take part in future studies. Because our first full report is still in preparation, some answers describe how our research will work once publications begin. If you have a question that is not covered here, or you want to discuss how our research and project experience could support a decision your organization is facing, the final answer explains how to contact our team.
We publish original research and analysis on healthcare AI, interoperability, telehealth, compliance, revenue cycle technology and healthcare product delivery. Each publication follows documented methods, states its sample and limitations and separates findings from any description of our services. Each one is dated.
Our first full research report is currently in preparation and will be published on this page when it is complete. Contact us if you would like to be notified at publication or to contribute data or interviews to the study.
Taction Software is a healthcare software company, so we disclose our interests in every report. We reduce bias through documented methods, stated limitations, expert review and strict separation between findings and any description of our own services. Readers can judge for themselves.
We never publish protected health information. Any project data used in research is aggregated and de-identified, used only with appropriate permissions, and handled under privacy protections. Survey responses are anonymized unless participants explicitly agree otherwise. Privacy always comes first in every study.
Yes, for editorial, educational and internal use with clear attribution and a link to the source report. Please keep figures unaltered and in context. Contact us first if you plan to use our research in commercial or marketing materials. Thank you.
You can take part through surveys, expert interviews or data partnerships. Contact us through our contact us page and mention research participation. We will explain current studies, what participation involves and how your information will be protected. Participation is voluntary.
If your organization is facing a technology decision our research or project experience could help with, we would be glad to talk. Book a conversation with our team through the free consultation page. We will share relevant findings and practical experience from our projects.
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.