Loading
Because it assumes everything about a contact can live in one row, visible to whoever can see the account. In healthcare that assumption is the problem rather than a convenience.
So the commercial team ends up with a spreadsheet of referrers, deliberately separate, and nobody can say which referral source produced which revenue.
Field-level permissions mean a record can be complete without being open: the commercial team sees the referrer, the contract and the value, and not the clinical detail.
Referrers are company records with their own history, so referral volume by source, by month, is a query rather than a reconstruction.
It is not a clinical system and holds no clinical record. It is deliberately the commercial layer beside one.
And it does not make you compliant. It gives you field-level control and an uneditable audit trail; how you configure them, and under what lawful basis, is yours and your advisers' decision.
Books bills the contract from its agreed terms, and Desk handles the enquiry queue with the same permission rules. Referral source travels through to recognised revenue, so a relationship that produces nothing is visible.
Every access to a restricted field is in the audit trail, permanently.
Products, not integrations. Each one reads the same record, so a join is a permission rather than a sync job with a mapping screen behind it.
Yes, down to the individual field, and every access to a restricted one is recorded.
Through the API. It references rather than duplicates, which is the point.
Yes, by source through to recognised revenue in Books.
Half an hour on your own numbers is usually enough to say whether Flow is the right place to start.