Hunt · searching for IP

Cardiology design partners for a device data program

Device telemetry claims are only worth holding if practicing cardiologists will tell us what the data has to do in clinic. We want three practicing physicians who have already fought with device data and lost.

Native Alpha™ sought. Clinicians who can describe the failure of a data flow precisely enough that it becomes a claim.

Who fits and who doesn't

What would qualify them

Practicing, not purely academic
Has published or spoken about remote monitoring workload
Willing to review claim language in plain English

What would rule them out

Paid advisory relationships with a device manufacturer in the same category
No hands on time with the monitoring queue

Signals we watch

Reasons to look closer, none of them proof

Writing about alert burden and remote monitoring staffing
Society committee work on remote monitoring standards
Case reports involving data reconciliation failures

How far this search has run

These figures are illustrative, like the candidate packet below. They show the shape of a hunt at this stage rather than counts from a search we are running today.

Surfaced: 27
Reviewed: 12
In conversation: 5
Experiments: 2

What a candidate looks like

This is the written answer you would get for each candidate: why they surfaced, what backs it, what we don't know, and what to do next. The person below is a composite, not a real individual.

Evidence packet · illustrative

Illustrative candidate: an electrophysiologist

Electrophysiologist, community cardiology group

Surfaced for: Cardiology design partners for a device data program
Why surfaced: Wrote a short piece describing how remote monitoring alerts consumed a full nursing role without changing an outcome, and proposed a triage rule.
Current signals: Society committee service on remote monitoring
Public writing on alert triage
No visible manufacturer advisory relationships
Possible Native Alpha™: Describes data problems in terms of who has to act on them, which converts directly into claim scope.
Why it might matter: A claim written without a clinician who works the queue tends to cover the wrong step.
Evidence: Published the alert triage argumentSource: Professional publication
Committee service listed publiclySource: Society roster
Known relationship: None known.
Unknowns: Institutional rules on outside review work
Whether the triage rule was ever implemented
Suggested next action: Ask for one hour of paid review on two claim summaries, in plain English.
Confidence and status: Medium confidence · Surfaced

What this search has taught us so far

Physicians who complain publicly about alert burden are the best possible reviewers of claim language, because they already know the failure mode by heart.