How we handle clinical accuracy

An anatomy product has a specific way of failing that most software does not: it can be wrong about the body, confidently, at the exact moment a clinician is using it to explain something to a patient. Everything about how we handle content follows from taking that failure mode seriously.

Every piece of clinical content starts as a draft

Anatomical descriptions, patient-language explanations, clinical preset narrations, blog posts like this one — all of it is written first and reviewed second. Until a qualified clinician has reviewed a piece of content, it carries a visible badge: content pending clinical review. In the product, on this blog, everywhere it appears.

You are reading a draft right now. The badge at the top of this post is not a mock-up.

Approval is a named, dated act

A piece of content cannot be marked approved without two things recorded against it: the reviewer's name and the date they signed off. This is enforced mechanically — our build refuses content marked approved with either field missing, the same way it refuses code that fails a test.

That constraint exists because the alternative is worse than it sounds. An "approved" label with nobody's name on it is indistinguishable from an unreviewed one; it just reads better. If the label is going to mean anything, someone has to put their name next to it.

The same rule runs in reverse: a draft is not allowed to name a reviewer. Content that implies a sign-off that has not happened fails the build too.

Why we show you the label instead of hiding the content

The comfortable option would be to hold everything back until review is complete and only ever show polished, approved material. We chose the opposite: ship the draft, label it honestly, and let you decide what to rely on.

The reason is the person on the other side of the screen. If you are standing next to a patient explaining something, you need to know whether the sentence on screen has been verified by a clinician or written by a team member awaiting review. Hiding drafts would make the product look more finished; labelling them makes it more usable. We would rather show you an honest label than a confident mistake.

What review actually covers

Our reviewers are asked to check three things: that the anatomy is correct, that the patient-language version says the same thing as the professional version without distorting it, and that nothing drifts into diagnosis or treatment advice — the product is an education and communication tool, and content that tells anyone what to do about their own body is out of scope regardless of accuracy.

One editorial rule is worth naming because it shapes so much of what we publish: whenever content touches symptoms, it must make clear that the same symptom can arise from opposite causes, and that telling them apart is an assessment question for a clinician. That habit is the difference between explaining anatomy and accidentally practising it.

Open this structure in the viewer

When review finds a problem

Review that never rejects anything is theatre, so it is worth saying what happens when a reviewer disagrees with a draft. The content changes — not the label. A draft stays a draft until the reviewer is satisfied, however many rounds that takes, and if a claim cannot be sourced or safely phrased, it is cut rather than softened. When already-approved content is later corrected, the approval does not silently carry over: the change goes back through review, because a sign-off applies to the words that were signed, not to whatever the file contains now.

What we do not publish at all

Some content fails before review because it is out of scope by policy, not by accuracy. We do not publish anything that diagnoses, prescribes, or gives personalised advice — no "if you have X, do Y" — because between an accurate general explanation and an individual decision sits an assessment only a clinician can do. We do not publish patient stories, real or invented: real ones are private, and invented ones presented as real are a lie with good production values. And no content names an advisor, institution or endorsement without written permission. These rules are enforced at the editorial stage so reviewers spend their time on anatomy rather than on catching category errors.

The queue is public

The full review queue lives in our repository: every drafted entry, what a reviewer needs to verify about it, and its current status. As entries clear review, badges disappear one at a time. There is no launch-day switch that marks everything approved at once, because that is not how review works.

If you are a pelvic-floor physiotherapist and this way of working appeals to you, the demo shows the product as it stands — badges included. And if you would rather be one of the people the badges answer to, we are looking for reviewers: get in touch.