Custom software for your inspectorate case file
A notification to the inspectorate is not an end point but an opening. A response follows, usually a request to carry out your own investigation, then a report, then questions about that report and commitments on improvement measures. Each of those steps has its own deadline, and together they form a file that at most organisations lives in a mailbox.
Why the relationship is a file, not a series of forms
Following a mandatory notification, the inspectorate determines within a few weeks whether there is cause for further investigation. In many cases it asks the care provider to carry out its own investigation and report on it within a deadline it sets. That report leads to follow-up questions, and those to commitments about what you will improve.
In addition, there are contacts that do not arise from a notification: supervisory visits, questions prompted by a signal, thematic investigations in your sector. These too produce findings and commitments, with their own deadlines and their own people involved.
In practice, all of this lives in the mailbox of a quality officer. While things are quiet, that works. It goes wrong when that person goes on leave, when two processes run at the same time, or when the inspectorate returns a year later to a commitment that never had an owner internally.
Alongside the supervisory file, you periodically supply quality indicators. How you record those at source rather than reconstructing them afterwards is covered on the page about the app for recording indicators on the ward.
How we build this
The contact moment is the unit here, not the notification. If each moment is tied to a file with a deadline and an owner, the relationship stays manageable even when several processes are running.
Which files are open with the inspectorate, what has been committed to, and where things stand. For most organisations, that is the first overview there has ever been.
Anything you commit to the Inspectorate gets an owner and a date, just like a finding from an audit. A commitment without an owner is a risk that comes back a year later.
The Inspectorate sets deadlines by letter, and they differ per case. We record them on receipt, not when someone next rereads the letter.
The board needs to know what is running and what is still open, without seeing the patient data underneath. That is a separate view with its own permissions.
What the software actually does
The case file carries everything. Which components you need depends on how many cases you have running at once and on your size.
Case file per matter
Notification, correspondence, report and follow-up questions brought together, with a timeline. When someone asks what something was about and what was said, you open a file rather than search a mailbox.
Deadlines recorded per letter
The Inspectorate sets a deadline per case for your report or response. It is attached to the file and warns you in advance, not on the day itself.
Commitments with an owner and a date
What you commit to improve becomes an obligation with a name attached. This is the category most often left unfinished, and the one the Inspectorate most often returns to.
Every contact moment recorded
Not only notifications, but also visits, questions prompted by a signal and thematic investigations. Together they form the picture the Inspectorate has of you.
Patterns across cases
If the same shortcoming recurs across several cases, that is the conversation you want to have yourself before the Inspectorate does.
Connecting to your reporting and quality system
Reports come from your own flow, via integrations. The reporting obligations with their strict deadlines are covered in Wkkgz software.
Who we build for
How much supervisory activity you have determines the scope. Four situations.
Hospitals and large institutions
Multiple cases running at once, spread across departments and specialisms. An overview of all open commitments is most often missing here, precisely because each case on its own is handled well.
Long-term care with multiple locations
A finding at one location raises the question of whether it occurs elsewhere too. Without an overview per location and across the whole organisation, that is an assumption.
Care groups and holdings
The Inspectorate looks at the care provider; your organisation is a structure. Who is responsible for what must be visible in the file, not only on an organisation chart.
Smaller providers and practices
Little activity, but when something happens there is nobody who has done this often. Then a file with deadline monitoring is the difference between oversight and improvising. The investigation itself is supported by the investigation app.
Test your idea first: a working prototype in 1 day
With OneDayBuild, we turn your idea into something tangible in one day for €1,150, so you can see whether further development is worth the investment. Decide to go ahead with the full build? Then we credit the full cost.
Explore OneDayBuild →Technology and integrations
The IGJ periodically adjusts its working methods around notifications and supervision. Anything involving routes, deadlines and forms should therefore be configurable and kept per version.
Why Appfront
Deadlines are in letters, not in a system
We extract them on receipt and attach them to the file. Otherwise someone only rereads the letter once the deadline is already running.
A commitment is an obligation
What you commit to improve, we treat as a measure with an owner. That is what the Inspectorate most often returns to, and where nothing is most often ready.
The board does not need to see everything
We build a view showing the status and open deadlines, without the patient data underneath. That is not a convenience but a requirement.
One stream, no second administration
Reports originate in your own system. We connect to it via integrations rather than having them re-entered.
Security and privacy
This file holds the most sensitive combination a healthcare organisation has: what went wrong with a patient, who was involved, and what the regulator makes of it. Each of those is already protected on its own; together they form a file that only a few people within the organisation should be able to see. We therefore set access by role and by file, and record every instance of viewing.
The board view calls for a deliberate choice. A board member needs to steer by what is ongoing and what remains open, and for that the names of patients or staff are not required. We therefore build that view as a separate layer with its own permissions, rather than as a filter on the full file, because a filter is a setting that someone can change. On the evidential side, commitments and deadlines must be recorded in a way that cannot be altered; what can be adjusted after the fact is not accountability when a follow-up question arrives. For how we handle security ourselves, see our information security policy; reports from outside come through our vulnerability disclosure policy.
Frequently asked questions about the supervision file
Within a few weeks of receipt, the inspectorate decides whether there is cause for further investigation. In many cases it asks you to carry out your own investigation and report on it within a deadline it sets. This is often followed by questions about your report and commitments on improvement measures; that whole process belongs in a single file.
No. The Wkkgz software covers the three reporting duties and the moment of establishment from which the three-working-day period begins. This page covers everything that follows, and the contacts that do not arise from a report. The two share the same files, but not the same question.
Because the inspectorate returns to them later, and because they rarely have an owner internally. A commitment is made in a letter by a board member or quality officer, and its delivery sits with a department that never saw the letter. A named owner and a date close that gap, not a better letter.
Precisely then, because no one there has done it often. In an organisation with a high volume of contact, the knowledge lives in routine; with little contact, it has to live in the system. In that case the system is also considerably lighter.
Yes, and we build that as a separate view with its own permissions, rather than as a filter. A filter is a setting someone can change; a separate layer by definition shows no more than the status and the open deadlines.
With several locations, that is often where the greatest value lies. If the same shortcoming recurs at two sites, it is a systemic question rather than an incident, and you would rather have that conversation yourselves than have the inspectorate raise it. For that, findings must be recorded in a comparable way.
No. Your quality system covers standards, audits and improvement cycles across the organisation; see healthcare compliance software. This file focuses specifically on the relationship with the regulator. They link to the improvement measures that arise from both.
That depends on how many cases you have running at once, whether the board view needs to be included, and whether integration with your reporting system is required. The file with deadline tracking and commitments is usually quick to put to use and gives immediate oversight. We provide a reasoned estimate after the discovery phase.
Would you like an overview of ongoing processes?
Ask which commitments are currently outstanding with the inspectorate and who owns each of them. If nobody can answer that within a minute, that is the work. We build this as a standalone application and as part of a broader custom software project.