Care doesn't unfold in isolated appointments. It moves through preparation, treatment, integration, follow-up, recovery, and sometimes another course of treatment. Yet the information needed to understand that journey is often scattered across people, systems, and time.
Arcametric exists to make the arc of care measurable.
We envision a shared measurement and learning infrastructure where independent clinical work can contribute to a clearer understanding of care over time. Each authorized participant contributes what they actually know: a preparation action, a dose, a vital sign, an observation, an assessment, a safety event, a follow-up, or an outcome. No one needs to reconstruct the entire history or capture everything.
Each meaningful contribution retains its clinical context, timing, source, and relationships. A small amount of information can become a useful starting point. As treatments, integration work, and assessments accumulate, isolated observations become a longitudinal account of what was done, what followed, and what changed.
That same foundation can serve different people for different reasons. Clinicians gain continuity across episodes of care. Trainers and supervisors can understand how practice develops. Researchers can work with more consistent real-world data and follow defined cohorts over time. Program leaders and funders can evaluate delivery and follow-through through information appropriate to their responsibilities.
No one sees the whole picture alone. By bringing together what each of us knows, we can better understand care without compromising the dignity or privacy of those in our care.
Our ambition extends beyond a single practice or study. Imagine independent practitioners, researchers, educators, and program sponsors contributing to and learning from responsibly governed individual histories and rolling cohorts over years. They would not need identical access, identical workflows, or identical roles. They would need a shared way to preserve the meaning of relevant facts.
Arcametric is built on two ideas: separate direct identity from the measurement of clinical work, and structure information well enough that it can be responsibly reused. Standardize what a recorded fact means, not how every clinician must practice. Make careful measurement and sound research methods part of the path from observation to credible evidence.
The clinical record captures the work. The longitudinal record connects the work. Research makes it possible to learn from the work. Arcametric is the infrastructure joining those purposes so that care delivered today can improve the understanding of care tomorrow.
That's why we measure the arc of care: to advance science and medicine, strengthen practitioners, improve treatment, and help people live healthier lives.
Measuring the Arc of Care · Companion
How It Works · 01 of 03
From a note to a usable clinical fact
A practitioner can enter supported facts directly or review a structured file prepared from prior notes. Arcametric checks those facts and connects them to the right clinical context.
01Document a clinical eventEnter a dose or vital sign during care. For earlier notes, prepare supported facts in a structured file and review them before import.Example: “Ketamine 50 mg at 10:05”
›
02Give the event a defined meaningRecord the event type, value, unit and occurrence time. Keep a ketamine dose distinct from a blood-pressure measurement.Example: Dose · Ketamine · 50 mg
›
03Connect it to clinical contextLink the fact to a coded case (a reference instead of a patient name) and the correct treatment date. Keep its timing and source without filling gaps.Example: Coded case · June 4 treatment
›
04Reuse it as care continuesFind the fact when reviewing care. Add later treatments, integration and assessments, and include eligible information in reports or analysis.Example: Review · Follow-up · Reports
A concrete example
Fictional source note
A partial treatment record
“June 4, 2026. Ketamine 50 mg administered at 10:05 a.m. Blood pressure 128/82 at 10:25. Follow-up sometime next week.”
A prepared, structured entry is checked and approved before import. The missing details stay missing.
What Arcametric can structure
TreatmentJune 4, 2026, associated with the appropriate coded case
Dose eventKetamine; 50 mg; occurrence time 10:05 a.m.
Vital signSystolic BP 128; diastolic BP 82; occurrence time 10:25 a.m.
Unresolved“Next week” isn't a confirmed appointment date. It requires clarification before becoming a dated follow-up.
What happens underneath
01 · Coded context
Separate identity
The identity-owning provider retains the name-to-code relationship. The clinical events are associated with the coded case.
02 · Governed meaning
Standardize the fact
Dose amount and blood pressure become distinct, typed observations with units, times, and source context, not interchangeable text.
03 · Preserve uncertainty
Don't fill the gaps
Unsupported interpretations aren't converted into facts. Missing information remains missing and can be added later.
Why this is different from storing notes: A future reviewer can locate an actual dose event or blood-pressure reading without guessing which sentence contains it, and can distinguish when the event happened from when it was entered.
Measuring the Arc of Care · Companion
How It Works · 02 of 03
From events to treatment history
New information doesn't replace the original facts. It adds relationships, making it possible to understand a course of care rather than isolated appointments.
May 31Baseline
PHQ-9 assessment
Recorded total: 17. Instrument and assessment date are retained.
June 4Treatment 1
Dose and vital-sign events
The 50 mg ketamine administration and 128/82 blood-pressure reading remain two events within this treatment.
June 18Treatment 2
Another documented session
A new treatment has its own date, events, and context, but belongs to the same coded-case history.
June 25Integration
Integration visit
The provider documents work related to both sessions. The relationship is preserved as recorded rather than assigned by guesswork.
July 2Follow-up
PHQ-9 reassessment
Recorded total: 11. Its date and instrument are available for comparison with the baseline.
August 1Later outcome
Another PHQ-9 assessment
Recorded total: 8. The case now has multiple dated measurements, not just one final score.
How continuity becomes measurable
17May 31 · BaselinePHQ-9 total
11July 2 · Follow-upPHQ-9 total
8August 1 · Later follow-upPHQ-9 total
For the person reviewing the case
The sequence makes it easier to examine what was administered, when it was administered, what followed, and how repeated measurements changed. The Longitudinal Treatment Record is one way to bring eligible information together.
For later analysis
Dated assessments can be aligned with treatments and follow-up windows. Separate events preserve their meanings, so an analyst doesn't have to reconstruct every relationship from prose.
What the scores mean: This fictional example shows a change in reported symptoms, not proof that ketamine caused the change. The record can support questions that appropriate research methods must answer.
Measuring the Arc of Care · Companion
How It Works · 03 of 03
Individual histories can support collective learning
Across contributors and settings, eligible observations can be compared using consistent definitions. A cohort is not just a collection of records: it is a defined group with rules about what can be measured.
Consider a research question
Fictional rolling cohort
How do PHQ-9 scores change after treatment?
Twenty coded cases are part of a hypothetical program. The researchers define which participants, PHQ-9 assessment dates, and follow-up windows qualify for a particular comparison.
A research rule changes which data can answer the question
13 with both scores
7 missing a pair
20 hypothetical cases: 13 have an eligible baseline and follow-up PHQ-9 pair; seven lack at least one qualifying measurement. Only the 13 paired histories support this particular score-change calculation. The missing seven must still be accounted for when interpreting the results.
Define
Specify who belongs, which instrument is comparable, and how follow-up time is measured.
Qualify
Check timing, source, completeness, missing data, and eligibility before analyzing.
Interpret
Estimate patterns, consider bias and alternative explanations, and report the limits of the findings.
Different roles, different views
Clinician
Case-level continuity
Reviews authorized clinical history to inform future care and follow-up.
Researcher
Governed analysis
Examines an eligible dataset using defined cohort and measurement rules.
Program funder
Program-level reporting
Reviews appropriate summary measures instead of automatically receiving individual records.
The critical mechanism: Document once with enough structure to preserve meaning. Reuse responsibly for continuity, reporting, and research. Better evidence depends on participation, suitable data, governance, and sound analysis, not simply collecting more fields.
Continue from the thesis to concrete proof.
These resources illustrate the record, the underlying definitions, and the documentation experience.
Longitudinal Treatment RecordSee a connected treatment history.