It starts during onboarding. Apricot's team works directly with your QA team to configure the platform around your standards: reviewing your QA checklists, audit criteria, templates, and anything else that defines what a complete chart looks like at your agency. That configuration drives how documentation is generated from day one. From there, Apricot continuously reviews clinician edits to evaluate whether agency-specific prompting is working and adjusts accordingly. If something changes or your team wants to see something different, there's a direct line to our support team and we move quickly to make changes.

It doesn't change the work itself. QA reviewers still review charts the same way they always have. What changes is what they're reviewing. Because documentation arrives more complete and consistent, they spend less time chasing clinicians for clarifications and filling in gaps. The goal is to let QA teams focus on quality, not cleanup.

Several things work in your favor. Every piece of documentation Apricot generates includes the reasoning behind it, so there's a clear record of why information was included and how diagnoses were ordered. A full audit trail shows what was generated versus what was edited, and by whom. And because coding and documentation are built together rather than reconciled after the fact, the chart is internally consistent—which is one of the first things auditors look for.

Does Apricot actively check OASIS scoring consistency, or is accuracy a downstream benefit of better documentation upstream?

Yes, and Apricot handles it proactively rather than waiting to be asked. We continuously review edits and output quality to identify opportunities to improve agency-specific prompting. Your team also has a direct feedback loop with our support team. If something isn't working the way you'd like, we move quickly to make changes.