PDI-Med Institutional Architecture & Risk Posture

PDI-Med is a physician-led clinical support platform that improves documentation quality, reasoning, and follow-up discipline—without ingesting, storing, or processing PHI on PDI-Med servers. It is not an EMR, not a data extractor, and not a surveillance or ranking system. It is intentionally constrained to reduce institutional risk, not increase it.

• Physician-facing clinical reasoning and documentation support.
• Privacy-first: stores only de-identified synthetic data.
• Non-prescriptive, non-punitive.
• Designed to reduce downstream risk (missed follow-up, documentation gaps, uncertainty blind spots).

• Not an EMR replacement.
• Not a PHI repository; not a Business Associate by default.
• Not a quality ranking system or payor/employer analytics tool.
• Not a decision authority or covert data extraction mechanism.

It does not compete with institutional EMRs and does not seek to control institutional data.

• PDI-Med does not require PHI; PHI is not intentionally transmitted to PDI servers.
• Only de-identified outputs are stored or processed centrally; no patient identifiers retained.
• No BAA is required for standard use; institutional PHI custody is not transferred.

Domain separation: Identified Domain (physician-controlled, may contain PHI, not transmitted) vs. De-Identified Domain (scrubbed/synthetic, stored/aggregated, non-reidentifiable by PDI-Med). This is an architectural invariant.

Does not introduce: new PHI storage surface, added PHI access vectors, data resale, clinician surveillance, ranking/punitive analytics, or cross-institutional patient tracking.

May reduce: incomplete documentation, missed follow-up, cognitive overload, variability driven by memory alone, and defensive medicine driven by uncertainty.

Assumes users make mistakes, environments vary, and malicious actors exist. Sensitive data is minimized by design; attack surface is intentionally limited; aggregate views are protected with suppression and thresholds; no single clinician’s data can be isolated.

Security is a product constraint, not a compliance checkbox.

• Optional, aggregate, de-identified insights derived from synthetic cases.
• Descriptive, non-punitive, non-competitive, non-ranked.
• No physician performance scores; no employer or payor analytics.

• Complementary to EMRs; does not replace institutional documentation.
• Does not modify institutional records or bypass governance.
• Does not interfere with billing workflows.
• Clinicians remain responsible for official medical records.

• PDI-Med does not require institutional integration to function.
• Any engagement is voluntary; scope explicitly defined.
• No PHI ingestion required; no loss of institutional authority.
• PDI-Med will not force integration as a condition of use.

• Improved documentation clarity and follow-up discipline.
• Reduced cognitive overload and burnout risk.
• No added PHI exposure; no undermining of institutional record ownership.

PDI-Med does not seek to extract institutional value or control data.

PDI-Med respects HIPAA by design, preserves institutional custody of PHI, supports physicians without surveilling them, reduces risk rather than introducing it, and operates without requiring blind trust in opaque AI systems. If PDI-Med ever violated these principles, it would no longer be PDI-Med.

Privacy, data boundaries, and risk posture — concise, defensive answers.

1. Does PDI-Med store or process PHI? No. Intended operation does not ingest, store, or process PHI on PDI servers. Anything PHI-related stays local to the clinician and is not transmitted.
2. Does PDI-Med require a BAA? No, for standard use. PDI-Med does not receive PHI under normal architecture. Optional future integrations can be evaluated separately.
3. Could PDI-Med extract institutional data? No. No bulk extraction, scraping, cross-patient identified aggregation, or database access. No EMR interfacing unless explicitly integrated under separate agreements.
4. What if a physician leaves? PDI-Med has no custody of institutional PHI. It cannot provide identified data. De-identified synthetic insights remain non-identifying and not tied to institutional access.
5. Can PDI-Med compare or rank physicians? No performance rankings, percentiles, employer dashboards, or payor analytics. Aggregate insight is descriptive only and intentionally non-competitive.
6. Could this data be subpoenaed or weaponized? PDI-Med stores no PHI. Synthetic aggregate data is non-identifying, not medical records, and not reconstructable into patient histories.
7. Does this bypass institutional IT controls? No. Operates as a physician-facing web app, similar to reference tools. No privileged access, no EMR credentials, no elevated permissions required.
8. What prevents misuse or gaming? Minimum cohort thresholds, suppression of rare combinations, limited drill-down, no single-user extraction, and graduated abuse response. Integrity is protected without policing clinical judgment.
9. Is this a decision-making or standard-of-care system? No. PDI-Med does not issue directives or mandates. It supports reasoning and documentation; clinicians remain sole decision-makers.
10. Why should institutions allow this? It does not increase PHI exposure; reduces documentation/follow-up risk; lowers cognitive burden; supports clinician retention; does not compete with institutional systems.

Closing clarification: PDI-Med is constrained so that even if trust were misplaced, the system cannot quietly drift into misuse. This is architectural design, not a policy promise.