A board-level decision dashboard for an Integrated Health Organisation. Not a passive report — it answers four questions and then tells you where to deploy resources next: are people healthier & more independent, is access fair and timely, are we deploying resource for the greatest impact and least inequality, and is the workforce able to work without friction? Know where to act. Prove what changed. Reduce the gap.
Live vs demonstrated:Live — real, API-backed platform logic (wired end-to-end today)Demonstrated — representative control surface with seeded data / illustrative UI mock-up
The four board questions. (1) Are people healthier, safer and more independent? (2) Are people getting fair and timely access to the right support? (3) Are we deploying resources where they create the greatest value and reduce inequality? (4) Is the workforce experience improving because the system is easier to work in? Every view ends in a recommended action with a confidence level.
The board answer, at a glance
A persistent board scorecard sits above five lenses (plus LeftShift embedded as a sixth — the Shift-Maturity sub-module). Each tile is a named query that drills to exactly the people behind it — here the risk-stratification pyramid, with a tier selected to reveal its rising-risk cohorts.
Board scorecard + Population & Risk — 270,310 people covered, 6,208 rising-risk, Core20 share 17.9%; click a tier to drill to its cohorts
The trajectory view — did we change the slope?
Outcome Intelligence never asks “how much activity happened?” It asks the only question that matters: did the intervention change the person’s trajectory? These two views make that visible — the cohort’s path against the path it was on, and how the whole population’s outcome mix moves over time.
Cohort trajectory vs. the path without support
Independence / stability index for a rising-risk frailty cohort. The shaded wedge is the deterioration the proactive intervention avoided — the trajectory the board actually changed.
