Angel investors
What should customer reference calls cover for a healthcare software startup?
a healthcare software startup: Customer reference calls are most useful when they investigate an actual workflow and buying decision.
Customer reference calls are most useful when they investigate an actual workflow and buying decision. A friendly reference can describe real benefits while still omitting implementation difficulties. Ask permission for the contact and clarify the relationship before interpreting the response.
Start with the decision
Ask about the last use, the alternative, adoption effort, who pays, and what would cause a renewal or cancellation. Keep direct observations distinct from opinions about the company's future. Compare contrasting references where available.
The illustrative scenario
This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.
The fictional team is piloting an administrative scheduling product with a provider group. Staff use it in a narrow workflow, while procurement and data review determine whether a broader rollout is possible.
A clinic's enthusiasm does not resolve data handling, workflow ownership, or applicable regulatory questions. This example does not assume a particular legal classification or approval.
Turn the scenario into an evidence decision
Consider a review of a healthcare software startup in which a confident explanation arrives before the supporting records. Start with the first question in the table. Write down what an answer would change: the next interview, the experiment's scope, a request for specialist review, or a decision to wait. A question without a consequence can produce a longer document while adding little understanding.
Next, inspect the record named in the table and record its date, owner, permission boundary, and limitations. Review authorized workflow observations, procurement requirements, permissioned usage evidence, and specialist advice about applicable obligations. Avoid using identifiable patient information in a diligence packet. If the record contradicts the explanation, preserve both accounts and ask which definition, period, or workflow differs. Do not silently select the version that makes the opportunity look strongest.
Finish with a conditional statement: if the specified evidence supports the claim under these conditions, take the named next step; otherwise investigate the unresolved question. A reference is one source with a context and potential bias. Corroborate important claims with records when permitted, and do not turn an enthusiastic customer quote into a guarantee of repeatable sales. This worked exercise is about the decision process. It does not assert that a fictional company has met a real diligence standard or that a template can authorize an investment.
| Item | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Decision question | How does the customer use it? |
| Case-specific constraint | A clinic's enthusiasm does not resolve data handling, workflow ownership, or applicable regulatory questions. This example does not assume a particular legal classification or approval. |
| Record to inspect | Review authorized workflow observations, procurement requirements, permissioned usage evidence, and specialist advice about applicable obligations. Avoid using identifiable patient information in a diligence packet. |
| Comparison to preserve | Compare the administrative workflow and rollout dependencies with the current process. Do not treat an operational pilot as clinical efficacy evidence. |
| Unresolved case question | Which workflow is actually in scope? |
Use this worksheet
Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.
- How does the customer use it?
- Who approved the purchase?
- What work did implementation require?
- What would cause a cancellation?
- What has the reference directly observed?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Which workflow is actually in scope?
- Who approves data access?
- What specialist review is needed?
Review authorized workflow observations, procurement requirements, permissioned usage evidence, and specialist advice about applicable obligations. Avoid using identifiable patient information in a diligence packet.
A concrete next test
Ask the authorized workflow owner to map a narrow administrative use case without disclosing patient information. Identify the data-access and procurement approvals needed for the next step. Keep operational adoption evidence separate from claims about clinical benefit or regulatory status.
Interpret the result
A reference is one source with a context and potential bias. Corroborate important claims with records when permitted, and do not turn an enthusiastic customer quote into a guarantee of repeatable sales.
Compare the administrative workflow and rollout dependencies with the current process. Do not treat an operational pilot as clinical efficacy evidence.
Sources and method
These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.