For Clinical Teams

An independent clinical evaluation built around your outcomes criteria.

Every innovation we assess has already demonstrated consistent value-based care outcomes. Your team evaluates a track record, not a pitch.

Impact Assessment · 16 weeks · Stage 1 Complete

Complex wound care · n=5 · 18 observations · QI design

Clinical outcomes

Wound area reduction

92.6%

Complete wound closure

4 of 5

Mean time to closure

4.0 wk

Safety

Infection rate (vs. 7.8% VLU benchmark)

VBC impact

Per-patient cost avoidance

$600–$3.6K

Infection cost avoidance (est.)

$5.8K–$11.9K

Adoption

Provider confidence, 16 wk

Moderate→High

Staff willingness to continue

100%

Co-designed by default

Every assessment starts with a question your clinical team sets.

Before enrolment begins, we agree what success looks like for your patients. The assessment is structured around that, not around a result the company behind the innovation is hoping for.

Your outcomes define the criteria. What does a good result look like for this patient population? We agree the answer before a single data point is collected.

Your reporting needs shape the design. QI data, value analysis committee evidence, peer-review-quality findings. The assessment is built to produce what you actually need.

Scope is fixed before enrolment. Your team carries only what serves your institution. The protocol is not repurposed from another site's use case.

What one assessment looked like

Impact Assessment · Stage 1 Complete · Complex Wound Care

Specialist wound care clinic, Southwest US

n=5 patients · 18 observations · Prospective · Consented
16 weeks · QI design · Burn, VLU, post-surgical wounds

Assessment scope

Clinical outcomes measured against site-defined wound closure targets

Safety benchmarked against published VLU and burn infection rates

VBC cost modelling built from the site's own visit and complication data

Provider confidence tracked across four observation timepoints

What the site received

An independent answer to a specific clinical question: does this innovation achieve consistent wound closure outcomes here?

A VBC cost analysis built from the site's own data, usable in committee without external validation

First authorship on the peer-reviewed manuscript. The outcomes dataset returned to the site, for any institutional purpose.

Now at Stage 2

The same methodology is now active across 12 sites and 300+ patients in a multisite specialist network. Each site co-designs its own assessment criteria.

Your interests, protected

We only work with innovations that have a proven track record.

Your team evaluates evidence, not a pitch. Every innovation AdoptFly works with has already demonstrated consistent value-based care outcomes. The assessment establishes whether those outcomes hold in your setting, with your patients.

The assessment is independent

The findings are what the data shows. That holds whether the primary outcome demonstrates improvement or not. Which is what makes the evidence usable when it matters.

First authorship

Your name and your institution as first author on the peer-reviewed manuscript. Not an acknowledgement on a company publication.

Your data, returned

A structured, de-identified dataset from your site, handed back at completion. Yours to use for institutional reporting, committee submissions, or benchmarking.

You review before publication

Your team has an authoritative say over how the findings are described before anything goes to publication.

Next step

See how the assessment works.

The Method covers what an independent impact assessment involves, what your team's commitment looks like, and what you walk away with.

Explore the Method →