Medical records processing · Production

Castell automates payer care gap attestation with Notable, saving 8,360 hours of staff time

The problem

Castell needed to close care gaps at scale across hundreds of providers, a task that required significant staff resources — equivalent to 47 full-time care coordinators — making manual chart review and payer attestation unsustainable as the organisation expanded its value-based care programs.

Workflow diagram · grounded in source
1
Care gap data surfaced pre-encounter
Trigger
Notable surfaces care gap information within the EHR prior to a patient encounter.
▾ source quote
“surfacing care gap information within the EHR prior to a patient encounter”
2
Automated chart review
Ai action
Notable automatically surfaces actionable data from the EHR for chart review.
▾ source quote
“using Notable to automatically surface actionable data from the EHR”
3
Care gap validation
Validation
Notable validates closed care gaps before reporting them to payers.
▾ source quote
“validating and reporting closed care gaps to payers”
4
Payer attestation submission
Output
Castell submits patient charts to payers for care gap attestation.
▾ source quote
“Castell has submitted 6,915 charts for care gap attestation”
5
Performance data tracking
Integration
Data is tracked accurately to measure performance and track financial and patient outcomes.
▾ source quote
“data is tracked accurately to measure performance and track financial and patient outcomes”
Reported outcome

By automating chart review and payer care gap attestation with Notable, Castell reviewed over 100,000 patient charts, saved 8,360 hours of staff time, submitted 6,915 charts to payers, and achieved a 6.9% increase in average care gap closure rate across five measures.

Reported metrics
Patient charts reviewedover 100,000
Staff time saved8,360 hours
Charts submitted for care gap attestation6,915
Average care gap closure rate increase6.9%
Show all 6 reported metrics
patient charts reviewedover 100,000
staff time saved8,360 hours
charts submitted for care gap attestation6,915
average care gap closure rate increase6.9%
FTE care coordinators equivalent automated47 full time care coordinators
providers covered by automated chart review468
Reported stack
NotableIntelligent Population HealthEHRUnited HealthcareSelect Health
◆ Does this fit your context?

Compare to your context

Tell us your scale, team, and constraints. We'll show what changes at your size, what fails at your scale, and whether this case is a fit, needs adaptation, or won't scale to you. Free demo, no signup.

Compare to your context →
~30 seconds · free
Source
https://www.notablehealth.com/customer-stories/castell-payer-care-gap-attestation
Read source ↗

Frequently asked questions

What did this team achieve with this AI workflow?

By automating chart review and payer care gap attestation with Notable, Castell reviewed over 100,000 patient charts, saved 8,360 hours of staff time, submitted 6,915 charts to payers, and achieved a 6.9% increase in…

What tools did this team use?

Notable, Intelligent Population Health, EHR, United Healthcare, Select Health.

What results were reported?

Patient charts reviewed: over 100,000; Staff time saved: 8,360 hours; Charts submitted for care gap attestation: 6,915; Average care gap closure rate increase: 6.9% (source-reported, not independently verified).

How is this medical records processing AI workflow structured?

Care gap data surfaced pre-encounter → Automated chart review → Care gap validation → Payer attestation submission → Performance data tracking.

Related medical records processing cases

WHAT TO DO WITH THIS

Now compare it to your context

This case is one data point. Whether its pattern fits you depends on your volumes, your stack, and your exception load — that comparison is the step no case study can do for you.

Browse the Medical records processing cases →