I recently trialed Open Evidence and one feature stood out immediately as a major differentiator: live, in-visit clinical guidance. During a visit, I could type questions such as “What questions should I ask next?” or “Is anything I recommended incorrect or missing?” and receive real-time, clinically relevant prompts while still with the patient. This functionality meaningfully improves visit quality, not just documentation. It supports clinical completeness, reduces cognitive load, and acts as a real-time safety net without interrupting workflow. Importantly, it is usable during the visit, not retrospectively. This is currently a gap in Heidi. Heidi is excellent as a documentation tool, and I have been loyal to it for that reason. However, without real-time, in-visit guidance, Heidi functions as a passive scribe rather than an active clinical support tool. Open Evidence is already offering this capability, and it is free. From a user perspective, the question becomes: what keeps clinicians from switching if this gap remains? I strongly recommend prioritizing a live visit interaction feature, where clinicians can: Ask what additional history, ROS, or counseling points may be appropriate in real time Sanity-check recommendations before the visit ends Receive prompts without breaking eye contact or workflow This type of functionality aligns with how clinicians actually think and practice, and it materially affects care quality, not just note quality. Adding this would significantly strengthen Heidi’s competitive position and long-term clinician loyalty.
