AI Consulting in Providence

Every healthcare engagement starts with a data-flow map before any credentials change hands. We identify exactly which systems the automation touches — EHR, billing platform, scheduling tool, or payer portal — and scope API access to the minimum required for the specific workflow. A Business Associate Agreement is executed with the covered entity and with any sub-processors in the data path before go-live. For Lifespan, Care New England, and their affiliated practices, that typically means integrating through Epic's officially supported APIs or HL7 FHIR endpoints rather than screen-scraping workarounds that create audit exposure. Prompts and patient data are routed through enterprise model endpoints with no-training, zero-retention contractual terms — not consumer-grade APIs. We also document the full data lifecycle so the compliance officer has an artifact they can hand to an auditor: what data is accessed, where it moves, how long it persists, and who can see it. The BAA and the architecture diagram are deliverables, not afterthoughts.

Yes, and it requires treating the IRB approval and grant terms as inputs to the workflow design from the start, not constraints bolted on at the end. NIH-funded research workflows have specific data-handling requirements that vary by grant mechanism and study type — some restrict where data can be processed, others require specific audit trail formats for progress reports. For research administration teams, the highest-leverage workflows tend to be around grant progress report compilation (pulling data from multiple lab systems into a structured draft), protocol amendment tracking, and budget reconciliation across funded periods. We map the grant terms first, design the automation to stay inside those boundaries, and build in the logging that satisfies both the PI's reporting needs and the sponsored research office's compliance requirements. For workflows that involve identifiable research participant data, the same scoped-access and zero-retention controls from the healthcare side apply.

Cross-border regulatory handling is a configuration problem, not a fundamental limitation — but it has to be designed in from the start rather than handled with manual exceptions after the fact. For professional services firms operating in both states, the common pressure points are client onboarding documentation (RI and MA have different requirements for certain licensed services), employment compliance workflows for staff split across state lines, and contract language that has to reflect the governing law for each engagement. The way we handle it is to build state-awareness into the workflow logic: the automation routes documents, flags required fields, and applies the right compliance template based on where the engagement is governed, not where your office happens to be located. For firms that also touch Connecticut, the same pattern extends. The audit surfaces exactly where the cross-border handling breaks down in your current process — that's usually the fastest way to scope what actually needs to be built.

Older ERP systems — the kind that were deployed before modern REST APIs were standard — typically expose data through flat-file exports, ODBC connections, or vendor-specific query interfaces. The good news is that those interfaces are usually consistent and well-documented, even if they're not pretty. The integration approach we use is to build a lightweight data-extraction layer that reads from whatever the ERP supports, normalizes the output into a structured format, and feeds it into the automation on a defined schedule or trigger. For mid-tier manufacturers in the Providence metro, the workflows that tend to move the needle fastest are automated exception reporting on production variances, procurement order matching across suppliers, and inventory reconciliation that flags discrepancies before they become a floor problem. We don't require you to replace or upgrade the ERP — the build works with the system you have. What we do need is a conversation with whoever administers the ERP to understand what's actually exportable and on what schedule, so we don't design against a capability that doesn't exist.

The audit is a structured diagnostic, not a sales deck with your logo on it. We look at the specific workflows you're running today — how data moves between your systems, where manual handoffs happen, where exceptions fall out of the process and require human intervention, and where time is being spent on work that follows a predictable pattern. For Providence-area organizations, that often means healthcare revenue-cycle steps that require manual payer follow-up, research administration tasks that repeat every reporting cycle, cross-system reconciliation in professional services, or production exception handling in manufacturing. The output is a written report that ranks your highest-leverage automation candidates by estimated time reclaim, implementation complexity, and any compliance considerations specific to your industry. You own the report — there's no obligation to build anything with us afterward. If you do want to move forward, we scope a fixed-price build against one of the prioritized workflows, typically two to four weeks to deployment.