Public journey inventory
Canonical routes, entry states, informational versus interactive boundaries, crawl directives, and mobile and desktop behavior.
For digital-health and behavioral-health software teams
Screening implementation readiness review
A fixed-scope technical and content review for public-facing mental-health or substance-use screening journeys. The review uses public pages or fictional staging evidence and returns a prioritized evidence register.
No patient data accepted
No answers or scores collected
Verified evidence separated from unknowns
Do not email patient records, assessment answers, scores, diagnoses, or other health information.
What the proposed review covers
Instrument rights evidence
Authoritative owner or publisher terms, exact-version records, missing approvals, and commercial-use gates without reproducing restricted items.
Privacy and network boundary
Data-flow claims, browser storage, request metadata, analytics and advertising isolation, sharing behavior, and third-party requests.
Safety and clinical limits
Crisis actions, non-diagnostic language, result-copy boundaries, reviewer scope, and findings that require topic-qualified review.
Accessibility and usability
Keyboard entry, labels, focus behavior, result announcements, touch targets, narrow-screen layout, and printable-state risks.
Discovery and release controls
Titles, canonicals, sitemap and indexing state, internal discovery, structured data, release checks, and prioritized remediation.
A bounded three-step process
- 1
Confirm scope
Name the public routes, instrument list, staging boundary, and questions the review should answer.
- 2
Review fictional evidence
Inspect public or non-sensitive staging states without entering real answers or generating real assessment results.
- 3
Deliver the register
Separate verified evidence, inference, unknowns, release blockers, and the highest-value remediation steps.
Exact limits
This is a technical and content-readiness review, not a legal opinion, clinical validation, instrument licence, penetration test, accessibility certification, diagnosis, or assurance of regulatory compliance.
- Only an instrument owner or authorized publisher can grant reuse permission.
- Clinical items, scoring, thresholds, crisis branches, and care guidance may require topic-qualified clinical review.
- Legal, privacy, security, and accessibility conclusions must be made by professionals qualified for the exact jurisdiction and scope.
- No review changes production or represents that a product is safe for diagnosis or treatment.
Frequently asked questions
Does the review require patient records or assessment results?
No. The proposed review uses public pages or a fictional, non-sensitive staging environment. Do not send patient records, assessment answers, scores, diagnoses, or other health information.
Is this a legal, clinical, security, or accessibility certification?
No. It is a bounded technical and content-readiness review. Findings that require legal advice, clinical validation, a penetration test, or formal accessibility conformance must be handled by appropriately qualified professionals.
Can the review grant permission to use a screening instrument?
No. The review can organize current authoritative evidence and identify missing permission records, but only the instrument owner or authorized publisher can grant rights.
What does the deliverable include?
The proposed deliverable is a prioritized evidence register covering public routes, instrument-rights records, citations, crisis and non-diagnostic safeguards, privacy and third-party requests, accessibility, crawlability, and release gates.
Start with the scope, not sensitive data
Describe the product, public routes, and business question. Do not include patient records, assessment answers, scores, diagnoses, or other health information.
Email MindCheck Tools