Volume
Procedure-specific annual case count, not total hospital beds. A team doing the same operation 200 times a year is structurally different from a team doing it 20 times.
How We Evaluate
A hospital name does not answer the case.
We turn medical uncertainty into an independent route assessment by testing hospitals, doctors, evidence, access, and patient fit through a structured report process.
No referral fees
Records-based review
Case-specific shortlist
Evaluation pillars
Every serious route is tested against four questions.
Our framework is built to separate reputation from route fit. A famous hospital is not enough; the case has to match the team, evidence, timing, and practical path.
Outcomes
Complications, readmission, survival or disease-control signals, recovery burden, and quality-control discipline when reliable data can be verified.
Recognition
Specialty-specific credibility: peer standing, guideline participation, clinical-trial leadership, publications, and society roles in the exact disease area.
Suitability
The route must fit the patient's diagnosis, timing window, records, language needs, cost range, travel burden, and follow-up path.
Scoring model
How we weigh the evidence when comparing routes.
Weights shift by specialty and available evidence, but the default model favors clinical proof over convenience. Procedure volume carries the highest weight, followed by outcomes and peer recognition.
Procedure volume
Exact disease or procedure experience.
Outcome data
Complications, safety, recovery, and quality signals.
Peer recognition
Specialty standing, publications, and academic role.
Trial or technique leadership
Advanced treatment, clinical-trial, or procedure leadership.
Access reality
Timing, records transfer, language, and continuity.
Patient fit
Cost, travel burden, family needs, and follow-up feasibility.
This model is a decision aid, not a mechanical score. The report explains where evidence is strong, where it is uncertain, and why a route is or is not worth pursuing.
Report workflow
How a case becomes an independent navigation report.
The work moves from raw records to a structured recommendation matrix. Paid research starts only when the free review suggests a deeper comparison is useful.
Case intake
We clarify diagnosis, staging, current treatment, records, goals, timing pressure, and the decision that needs support.
Records synthesis
Imaging, pathology, labs, medications, and history are organized into a clinical summary and question list.
Medical review
Independent reviewers assess diagnosis, treatment logic, missing tests, clinical urgency, and route feasibility.
Candidate screening
Doctors and centers are screened against volume, outcomes, recognition, access, cost, and patient fit.
Route comparison
The strongest options are compared side by side, including specialty match, logistics, tradeoffs, and unresolved risks.
Report delivery
The family receives a structured report with recommended next steps, evidence notes, verification points, and boundaries.
A standard agency reply can be one round of email. An independent navigation report takes structured review because the cost of an unverified route is higher than the cost of careful evaluation.
Final deliverable
What every independent navigation report includes.
A full report is designed for decision-making, not persuasion. It summarizes the case, explains the reasoning, compares suitable options, and makes the limits clear.
Start with a free case review
Independent Medical Navigation Report
Confidential
- 01Executive Summary
Patient profile, current diagnosis, goals, and up to three core conclusions.
- 02Records Synthesis
Timeline, imaging, pathology, lab findings, medication list, and open questions.
- 03Medical Review
Independent assessment of diagnosis, current plan, missing tests, and strategy.
- 04Specialist Matrix
Shortlisted doctors with specialty fit, volume, outcomes signals, access, and rationale.
- 05Center Profile
Hospital capability, MDT, international pathway, clinical-trial access, and service fit.
- 06Evidence and Logistics
Guideline notes, literature signals, appointment path, records transfer, cost and risk notes.
Some sections are scaled to case complexity; the structure remains consistent.
Recommendation matrix
The core output is a comparison, not a single hospital name.
When the case warrants deeper research, we compare shortlisted doctors and centers using the same fields so the tradeoffs are visible.
| Sample route | Specialty fit | Volume signal | Outcome signal | Access | Use case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred option | Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, robotic approach | Robotic Whipple 220+/yr | Pancreatic fistula <8% | Pre-screen 2 days, surgery window about 1 week | Best when speed and minimally invasive technique both matter |
| Backup option | Same diagnosis, open or hybrid approach | Whipple 300+/yr | R0 rate 88%, readmission <2% | Pre-screen 3 days, full MDT pathway | Best when MDT depth outweighs incision size |
| Alternative option | Advanced or borderline case needing extra review | Specialized hepatopancreatobiliary team | Requires center-level verification | Case conference before route selection | Best when anatomy, trial eligibility, or staging is uncertain |
Numbers shown are illustrative anonymized examples, not treatment promises. Actual reports use case-specific fields depending on diagnosis, treatment stage, and available evidence.
Commercial independence
What independent really means.
Independence is not only about checking multiple sources. It is also about how the recommendation is commercially and structurally protected from referral incentives.
No commission, kickback, or referral fee
The patient is the only party paying for the evaluation. Hospitals and doctors do not pay us for inclusion in any report.
Reviewer-recommender separation
The medical reviewer who reads the records is structurally separated from the analyst who shortlists candidates. No single person controls the recommendation.
Conflict disclosure on every report
Each report names the medical director, institutional affiliation when relevant, and an explicit conflict-of-interest declaration before the recommendation is read.
Independent verification
We do not evaluate from hospital marketing alone.
Our role is to build a patient-side view from multiple signals, then state clearly what is known, what is uncertain, and what needs verification before contact or travel.
Patient records
Diagnosis, imaging, pathology, lab results, and current treatment documents.
Public evidence
Guidelines, publications, clinical-trial information, and available quality signals.
Center signals
Department structure, international service process, MDT capacity, and access pathway.
Practical checks
Scheduling, communication, records transfer, language support, cost, and continuity.
What our evaluation does not do.
YourChinaMed does not provide medical diagnosis, prescribe treatment, replace a licensed physician, guarantee outcomes, or guarantee appointment access or prices. Our reports are independent decision-support materials based on records and information available at the time of review.
Need to know whether a full report is useful for your case?
Get a free case review