Communication between institutions
The case identifies the absence of a common communication and information-sharing platform for intra-hospital and inter-hospital teamwork.
WU JIEPING MEDICAL FOUNDATION / HEALTHCARE CASE STUDY
Connected expertise.
Locally held records.
The documented Wu Jieping Medical Foundation project explores a distributed medical collaboration environment: connect institutions and professionals while retaining local control of records.
WJP
PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Wu Jieping Medical Foundation
Medical collaboration · Distributed CCOS and CCC · Local storage with selective sharing
Picowork’s company materials describe a signed agreement for exclusive supply of collaborative infrastructure to the Foundation. This describes the documented project; it does not assert that exclusivity or a particular deployment remains active.
THE CHALLENGE
Expertise across institutions.
Information within boundaries.
Records needed for shared review
Professionals needed to work together around relevant medical information while considering where records lived and who could use them.
Knowledge and training
The intended environment supported professional training and knowledge exchange alongside treatment-related collaboration.
Participation beyond the hospital
Patient access to records and remote communication were part of the project requirements, rather than separate from the collaboration model.
THE ARCHITECTURAL IDEA
Connect the expertise.
Keep ownership deliberate.
Local records
Institution-managed storage
Professional participants
SHARED CONTEXTCoSpace
Discussion · Review · Permissions
Local records
Institution-managed storage
Professional participants
Patient participation Selected information and approved access
Conceptual redrawing of the model in the company materials. Actual data flows and clinical use require institution-specific design and approval.
DOCUMENTED SOLUTION
A working environment for shared care.
| Project requirement | Approach described in the materials |
|---|---|
| Local medical record storage | Records held at the hospital and shared when required |
| Remote professional collaboration | Communication and data sharing around a common CoSpace |
| Cross-hospital consultation | A distributed environment connecting participating professionals |
| Patient information access | Patient control and selected sharing of their records |
| Professional learning | A shared context for training and knowledge exchange |
| Existing systems and resources | Aggregation of records and incorporation of relevant third-party applications |
| Institutional information ownership | Local data and a distributed architecture are central design principles |
LESSONS FROM THE PROJECT
A network of expertise.
A design for responsibility.
The case makes an important architectural distinction: connect institutions for collaboration without requiring every institution to surrender its storage decisions to one common external repository.
That design creates responsibilities as well as possibilities. Consent, patient identity, professional authorisation, record access, retention and audit requirements need to be settled by the participating institutions. Local hosting alone does not establish legal compliance or clinical suitability.
The company materials include rollout ambitions and estimated platform scale. Those are not used as achieved deployment or patient figures on this website. The project story focuses on the documented collaboration model and the requirements that shaped it.
Explore the cross-cloud modelYOUR NEXT CHAPTER
Start with the
institutional workflow.
Map the participating professionals, information boundaries and approval requirements before defining a pilot.
Build your collaboration brief