Approach
From a healthcare question to an analysis you can use.
We define the question and the evidence it needs, compare the relevant options, and explain what the results support. Where further review is useful, we identify the inputs and conditions that would need updating.
One current focus is reviewing care access and quality after healthcare integration. We also examine proposed service changes and current gaps in care.
Understand access and resources
Define the services, populations, and constraints relevant to the question, and identify what the available data can establish.
Read more →Compare alternatives
Examine feasible options and the assumptions that could change their relative results.
Read more →Review a healthcare change
Examine what changed, what can be concluded, and what further analysis may be useful.
Read more →
The engagement
How an engagement works
- 01
Define the question
Clarify what is being examined, who or what is affected, and the decision or review the work needs to support.
- 02
Agree the scope
Identify feasible methods and inputs, then agree the outputs, responsibilities, timing, and fees.
- 03
Conduct and review the analysis
Examine the evidence, perform the agreed analysis, and review the findings, assumptions, and limitations.
- 04
Explain the findings
Deliver the agreed outputs and discuss what the analysis supports and what remains unresolved.
Additional questions, data updates, or later reviews are agreed as part of the scope or commissioned separately.
Roles
Who does what
The Doogooda team
Defines the analytical work with you, selects suitable methods, performs the analysis, and reviews how the findings should be interpreted.
Your organization
Provides the purpose, relevant local facts, and agreed inputs, and retains responsibility for the decisions the work informs.
Analytical tools
Our tools support traceable inputs, calculation, comparison, and review. We are developing a shared workspace so suitable analytical work can be carried into a later review.
Understand access and resources
Understand access and resource needs.
An analysis can begin with a service, a population, or a geographic area. We examine what is known about access and available resources, where the evidence is incomplete, and which questions warrant a closer comparison.
Relevant barriers may include travel, affordability, insurance, or service availability. The measures depend on the question and the data that can responsibly support them.
Example question · Not a calculated result
Where might limited additional service capacity make the greatest difference, and which constraints would need to be addressed?
Compare alternatives
Compare alternatives within their real constraints.
We define the reference case and the alternatives, then examine the differences the available methods and evidence can support. The comparison can address access, quality, equity, resource use, or cost as appropriate to the question.
The analysis makes material assumptions and constraints visible, including conditions under which the comparison would change.
For a proposed service change, the comparison can examine who may be affected and what feasible responses would require before implementation. Later observations can support a separate review.
Review a healthcare change
Review what changed in healthcare delivery.
A review can start from a change in services, organization, resource allocation, or funding. We identify the affected population, the relevant period, and the expectations or comparison that can be established.
We distinguish observations from causal findings. Where the study design and evidence support a causal estimate, we explain the assumptions and uncertainty. Other projects may support a descriptive review or a conditional comparison.
The output may inform a next decision, a further investigation, or a separate evaluation. It is not an automatic approval or rejection of the change.
Example questions · Not customer findings
- A provider examining changes after a referral or scheduling redesign.
- A public agency or foundation considering where limited support could address a service gap.
- An evaluation or advisory team examining whether proposed operating conditions are consistent with stated service commitments.
Questions in practice
Two service-change questions, and how we would scope them.
A service change raises questions about who could face a gap in care and what practical responses are available. Here are two examples of questions an organization could bring.
Cancer care
Scoping a chemotherapy-access question
A local practice is considering closing one outpatient chemotherapy site. The question is how patients could continue the treatment their clinical teams have specified, and which service or support arrangements would be feasible.
What the analysis would examine
| Question | What needs to be established |
|---|---|
| Required treatment | Which treatments and supporting clinical services are in scope, and which receiving sites can provide them. |
| Coverage and cost | Relevant coverage, network and authorization conditions, and the costs patients could face where evidence is available. |
| Appointment capacity | Whether receiving sites can accept the relevant patients and accommodate the required schedules and supporting visits. |
| Repeated travel | The journeys associated with the specified visits, transport options, and who may face practical barriers. |
| Clinical handoffs | How referrals, treatment information, tests, clinical responsibility, and follow-up would transfer between teams. |
| Patient use and preferences | Which alternatives people can realistically use, what available evidence says about their choices, and which constraints remain unmeasured. |
| Quality and uncertainty | Which service and quality measures are appropriate, and what the available evidence cannot establish. |
Required treatment
What needs to be established
Which treatments and supporting clinical services are in scope, and which receiving sites can provide them.
Coverage and cost
What needs to be established
Relevant coverage, network and authorization conditions, and the costs patients could face where evidence is available.
Appointment capacity
What needs to be established
Whether receiving sites can accept the relevant patients and accommodate the required schedules and supporting visits.
Repeated travel
What needs to be established
The journeys associated with the specified visits, transport options, and who may face practical barriers.
Clinical handoffs
What needs to be established
How referrals, treatment information, tests, clinical responsibility, and follow-up would transfer between teams.
Patient use and preferences
What needs to be established
Which alternatives people can realistically use, what available evidence says about their choices, and which constraints remain unmeasured.
Quality and uncertainty
What needs to be established
Which service and quality measures are appropriate, and what the available evidence cannot establish.
Response options to compare
| Response | What the comparison would examine |
|---|---|
| Retain or reconfigure local treatment capacity | Clinical feasibility, staffing, operating requirements, appointment capacity, and cost. |
| Arrange capacity at other treatment sites | Treatment capability, coverage, appointment availability, transition requirements, and travel. |
| Add transport or coordination support | Who the support could help, operational requirements and cost, and which treatment or capacity gaps would remain. |
Retain or reconfigure local treatment capacity
What the comparison would examine
Clinical feasibility, staffing, operating requirements, appointment capacity, and cost.
Arrange capacity at other treatment sites
What the comparison would examine
Treatment capability, coverage, appointment availability, transition requirements, and travel.
Add transport or coordination support
What the comparison would examine
Who the support could help, operational requirements and cost, and which treatment or capacity gaps would remain.
Responses may be combined. Support services are assessed alongside the treatment capacity and clinical requirements they depend on.
You receive
A written brief setting out the affected population, supported findings, unresolved gaps, and implications for the proposed change. An options comparison, where commissioned, shows what each feasible response would require, who it could serve, and which assumptions need further checking.
What the work supports
Use the analysis to examine a service plan, assess a proposed transition, or focus a funding or oversight discussion.
Before and after a change
| Timing | Question | Output meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Before a change | Under the proposed arrangements, where could access become harder and which responses merit comparison? | Conditional analysis under specified evidence and assumptions. |
| After a change | What happened to observed access, treatment continuity, or service use, and what needs further review? | Observed findings; causal estimates require an appropriate design and evidence. |
Before a change
Question
Under the proposed arrangements, where could access become harder and which responses merit comparison?
Output meaning
Conditional analysis under specified evidence and assumptions.
After a change
Question
What happened to observed access, treatment continuity, or service use, and what needs further review?
Output meaning
Observed findings; causal estimates require an appropriate design and evidence.
Emergency care
Scoping an emergency-care access question
A hospital is considering closing its emergency department. The question is which emergency-care pathways would remain available, which communities could face changed access, and what receiving services would need.
What the analysis would examine
| Question | What the analysis would examine |
|---|---|
| Where people could go | Relevant emergency departments and clinical capabilities for the defined population and care needs. |
| Journeys and emergency transport | Self-arrival journeys, ambulance routing and transfer arrangements, using appropriate data for each. |
| Receiving-service constraints | Staffing, operating hours, crowding, and downstream capacity where relevant evidence is available. |
| Response options | Feasible service, transport, coordination, or capacity arrangements and their requirements. |
| What remains uncertain | Unobserved pathways, unavailable capacity data, assumptions, and limits on conclusions about outcomes. |
Where people could go
What the analysis would examine
Relevant emergency departments and clinical capabilities for the defined population and care needs.
Journeys and emergency transport
What the analysis would examine
Self-arrival journeys, ambulance routing and transfer arrangements, using appropriate data for each.
Receiving-service constraints
What the analysis would examine
Staffing, operating hours, crowding, and downstream capacity where relevant evidence is available.
Response options
What the analysis would examine
Feasible service, transport, coordination, or capacity arrangements and their requirements.
What remains uncertain
What the analysis would examine
Unobserved pathways, unavailable capacity data, assumptions, and limits on conclusions about outcomes.
You receive
A brief on the geographic and operational access questions the evidence supports, with gaps and assumptions made explicit. An agreed comparison can assess response options and the resources needed to support them.
Illustrative questions and scopes. No calculated results or customer outcomes are shown.
Discuss a service changeSynthetic demonstration
Current demonstrationAn illustrative comparison of GI integration arrangements.
This demonstration uses synthetic inputs to compare GI integration arrangements under a stated capital constraint. It shows modelled financial value and required capital.
In a guided walkthrough, we go through the arrangements, the assumptions behind the comparison, and what the result does and does not establish.
In this illustrative comparison, acquiring the practice has the highest modelled value—but requires more capital than the stated limit allows.
Comparing GI integration options
Compare each option’s modelled value, required capital, and stated requirements. The value ranges reflect the payment assumptions shown in the example.
Payment assumption: $1,440 to $1,530 per procedure.
Illustrative brief excerpt
- Question
- Which GI integration arrangements fit within the stated capital constraint?
- Finding
- The acquisition option shows the highest modelled value, but its required capital exceeds the stated limit. The comparison separates expected value from feasibility.
- Assumptions and next checks
- The comparison uses synthetic inputs and the payment assumptions shown. Any real application would need organization-specific inputs and a review of the relevant capital and service requirements.
Illustrative brief excerpt using synthetic inputs. Results depend on the stated assumptions and do not represent customer outcomes or an estimated causal effect.
What a guided walkthrough covers
- 01
Start from the question
A defined choice, the objective, and the constraints the arrangement must respect.
- 02
Compare the arrangements
The baseline and the alternatives side by side, on the outcomes the analysis supports.
- 03
Examine the assumptions
Which inputs and constraints drive the result, and how the stated payment assumption produces the value ranges shown.
- 04
Read the result with its conditions
What holds, what depends on an assumption, and what would need checking before deciding.
A guided walkthrough is available on request. The demonstration uses synthetic inputs and does not represent a deployed workflow. Explore service-change questions →
Findings and the record
Keep the evidence and reasoning with the findings.
The agreed outputs explain the question, relevant evidence, assumptions, findings, and limitations. Where useful, a Decision Record can also document the choices considered, the organization’s judgment, and the conditions for a later review.
Records created at the time of a decision are distinguished from expectations reconstructed afterward.
What a Decision Record can contain
- 01
Decision and ownership
The question, responsible people, and decision timing.
- 02
Objective and constraints
What the organization wants to improve and what the plan must respect.
- 03
Alternatives and baseline
The realistic choices and the reference case used for comparison.
- 04
Inputs and evidence
Local facts, external evidence, estimates, and explicit assumptions.
- 05
Comparison and uncertainty
Projected differences and the assumptions that could change them.
- 06
Judgment and unresolved issues
Human review, material disagreement, limitations, and unanswered questions.
- 07
Review conditions
What would prompt another look, when to check, and who responds.
- 08
Decision history
The version reviewed, the recorded choice, and subsequent changes.
Follow-up work
Revisit the analysis when its conditions change.
A later review starts from the earlier question, inputs, and assumptions. We identify what remains suitable, what changed, and which results need further analysis. The scope sets out the data updates, responsibilities, review schedule, and fees.
New observations do not automatically establish causation, and a change does not overwrite an agreed analysis until it has been reviewed.
Illustrative questions for a future analysis. These are not calculated results.
When a review leads to another choice.
| Illustrative option | What the analysis would need to examine |
|---|---|
| Maintain the current allocation | Whether the existing arrangement remains consistent with the defined need and constraints. |
| Reallocate available capacity | Which services and populations would gain or lose access, and whether the change is operationally feasible. |
| Add a defined increment of capacity | Demand, staffing, supporting resources, implementation timing, and incremental cost. |
Maintain the current allocation
What the analysis would need to examine
Whether the existing arrangement remains consistent with the defined need and constraints.
Reallocate available capacity
What the analysis would need to examine
Which services and populations would gain or lose access, and whether the change is operationally feasible.
Add a defined increment of capacity
What the analysis would need to examine
Demand, staffing, supporting resources, implementation timing, and incremental cost.
Not every review ends in another investment. Maintaining the current allocation, further observation, or an independent report are also possible next steps.
Questions
Starting an engagement
The agreed analysis, a clear explanation of the findings, and the evidence and assumptions needed to use them. The proposal specifies any option comparisons, written brief, review meeting, ongoing updates, or workspace access included in the engagement.
No system connection is required to begin a conversation. We first define the question and suitable inputs. File delivery, scheduled updates, or a data connection can be scoped when needed.
We are developing a shared analysis workspace. Availability for a real engagement is agreed separately.
We welcome inquiries from care providers, health plans, public agencies, foundations, self-insured employers, and the advisory and evaluation teams supporting them. We assess the question, relevant methods and evidence, and practical scope. We assess questions across healthcare services, including current care gaps, proposed changes, and later reviews.
Begin with a high-level description of what you need to understand and when it would be useful. We will discuss any additional inputs and the arrangements for using them separately. Please leave patient information and confidential transaction details out of the website form.
The proposal states the project fee, inputs, deliverables, and schedule before work begins. Additional analysis, ongoing review, or workspace access is specified when included.
Scope and follow-up
We can assess what the available evidence allows us to examine. Any expectations reconstructed later are identified separately from records made at the time. Missing data may limit or prevent a finding, including a conclusion about care quality or the cause of a change.
We can discuss a defined analytical contribution to an existing evaluation or advisory assignment. The question, reporting needs, responsibilities, data permissions, and any relevant conflicts are assessed before work is agreed. The analysis does not itself confer regulatory authority or approval.
Yes, a review can be considered as a standalone engagement. If it identifies a new choice that needs analysis, that work can be discussed separately. The scope follows the question.
A later review can examine new evidence or changed conditions. Its scope, inputs, responsibilities, timing, and fees are agreed for that work. An initial analysis does not include an automatic monitoring subscription or unlimited updates.
A follow-up review can assess whether a change applies to the analysis, which assumptions it affects, and what needs to be recalculated. The data sources, review process, and update arrangements are defined for the engagement.
We can assess whether the available evidence supports a comparison of defined options before a change. The analysis identifies relevant assumptions, resource requirements, and uncertainties. A later review of what happened is a separate scope unless agreed otherwise.
The cancer-care and emergency-care examples illustrate questions and possible scopes of work. They do not show calculated results or customer outcomes. The GI example is a separate demonstration using synthetic inputs.
Methods and responsibility
A causal estimate requires a suitable study design, comparison, data, and assumptions. Some questions can support a descriptive review or a conditional model comparison instead. We distinguish these types of findings in the output.
We first ask what your current reports, tools, or advisers already address and what remains unresolved. We then assess whether a defined analytical contribution would be useful. An engagement does not assume that your existing tools need replacing or that a new data connection is already available.
The relevant outcomes and constraints are defined for the question. Access, quality, equity, resources, and cost may point in different directions. We make those trade-offs explicit where the methods and evidence support them, rather than treating financial improvement as proof of better care.
No. The analysis explains evidence, assumptions, findings, and limitations. The responsible organization retains its decisions and any required clinical, legal, or regulatory review. Doogooda does not act as the regulator or guarantee the outcome.
Bring us the question you need to examine.
Tell us what you are trying to understand, compare, or evaluate, when the work would be useful, and what information is available. We will assess whether the question fits our current analytical work.