Practical guide
A detailed guide to the patient workflow
Read the walkthrough as a sequence of handoffs
The video above shows selected Jelo interface components with fictional data. It is a short orientation to the places staff work, not a recording of a completed patient visit. Use it to identify the handoffs you want to examine in more detail: intake to clinical review, the encounter to optical work, the order to payment and the documented service to billing follow-up.
At every handoff, ask four questions. What information is ready? Who reviews it next? What remains unresolved? Where does the team record the next action? These questions make the workflow useful even when your practice's staffing differs from the example. In a small office, one person may handle several steps; in a larger practice, each step may belong to a different team.
A connected platform can reduce the number of places staff need to look, but a shared record does not remove the need for review. The person receiving the work still needs to understand what the previous person completed and what requires attention. This guide explains how to prepare and test those transitions without treating a sample screen as proof of every configuration.
Establish the correct patient and office context
Before opening an encounter or order, staff should follow the practice's procedure for identifying the intended patient. Similar names, duplicate records and information supplied through different channels can create confusion. Decide who resolves a possible duplicate and how staff continue when they are uncertain, rather than encouraging them to choose the first plausible record.
For multiple locations, office context is also part of the handoff. Staff need to know where the appointment occurs, which office owns the operational work and which inventory quantities apply. Jelo supports multiple locations, but the exact role and office configuration should be reviewed during setup. An all-location view can support review and reporting; staff should switch to the working office for operational edits.
Use a fictional test with two offices and similarly named patients if those situations are relevant to your practice. Ask each staff role to explain how they know they are working in the right context. The test should reveal an understandable process, not depend on a presenter correcting a mistake before the evaluator notices it.
Prepare intake before the clinical handoff
Intake is useful when the next person can find the submitted information and understand what needs review. Start by deciding which questions the practice needs before the appointment and which can be resolved during the visit. Use clear labels and avoid requiring answers that patients cannot reasonably provide without assistance.
Test the form on a phone and review the staff-facing result. Check how required fields behave, how missing answers are recognized and where an updated response belongs. If the practice includes acknowledgments or consent documents, identify the specific document and the evidence staff use to confirm its status. A general statement that forms are digital is not enough to evaluate that process.
The practice context supplied by Jelo describes Care Optica moving from paper charts and difficult acknowledgment and consent tracking to a more organized, automatically tracked workflow in Jelo. That is a qualitative customer account, not a numerical performance guarantee. Your practice should still demonstrate its own forms and review procedure using the intake guide.
Assign the intake exception before moving on
A patient may arrive with an incomplete form, provide an answer that needs clarification or be unable to use the digital route. Decide who receives these exceptions and what the clinical team needs to know. An unresolved question should have a next owner rather than disappearing into a general note that nobody is expected to review.
Separate administrative clarification from clinical interpretation. Front-desk staff may help locate a form or confirm contact information, while clinical questions belong with an appropriately qualified person. The workflow should make that distinction clear without requiring the patient to understand the practice's internal organization.
In a rehearsal, introduce one missing answer and ask staff to show how it is handled. Observe whether the next person can identify the unresolved issue without repeating the entire intake process. This is a test of the handoff, not a promise that software can decide whether every answer is clinically sufficient.
Open the encounter with the intended documentation structure
The clinician should review the relevant patient information and choose the documentation structure appropriate to the actual encounter. A template can organize fields and make the record easier to navigate, but it does not decide which examination or service a patient needs. Clinical judgment and documentation responsibility remain with the clinician.
During a demonstration, ask how the intended template is selected, how sections are navigated and how information is reviewed before finalization. Include the practice's real documentation requirements as evaluation criteria, using fictional data. If you rely on external attachments or instrument results, identify those requirements separately and confirm the supported route.
The Jelo template editor and EHR guide provide starting points for this review. Do not assume that the existence of a configurable field establishes an integration with every device or service. A direct demonstration or specific confirmation is needed for requirements beyond the documented scope.
Distinguish a draft from a reviewed clinical record
Work in progress should be understandable to the people who receive it. A draft note, a clinician-reviewed record and a finalized encounter may have different implications for the next task. Ask the practice's clinical lead to define when information is ready for optical or billing use and what happens if something changes afterward.
Include correction handling in the evaluation. Staff should know how to identify the relevant record, involve the responsible clinician and follow the supported correction process. Avoid using informal messages as the only record of a change that affects downstream work. The authoritative information should remain in the appropriate approved system.
If an AI-assisted workflow is used, review the proposed content before relying on it. Jelo's available AI assistant is distinct from the planned AI scribe. The presence of an assistant does not mean a full encounter is automatically captured or clinically verified. Confirm the exact tool and the human review point in the demonstration.
Make the optical handoff specific
The optical team needs the appropriate prescription information and the details required for the patient's selected order. Decide how the team knows the information is ready and where questions return for review. A vague instruction to proceed to optical can create avoidable interruptions if the receiving staff cannot identify the intended record or unresolved issue.
In a fictional scenario, have the clinician complete the agreed handoff and ask the optical employee to locate the relevant information. Observe whether the employee can explain which record is being used and what still needs confirmation. Keep clinical interpretation with the appropriate professional; the evaluation should focus on the flow of information.
The handoff should also distinguish the clinical record from the retail selection. A frame choice, lens configuration and payment arrangement are related to the visit but are not interchangeable with the encounter documentation. The connected workflow is useful when each record has a clear purpose and staff understand how they relate.
Verify the item and variant before building the order
Optical inventory often contains closely related items. A frame model may have several colors and sizes, and quantities can differ by office. Staff should identify the exact item and variant required for the order rather than relying on a broad product name or an image alone.
Use a realistic test with two similar variants. Ask the optical team to find the intended item, confirm its office quantity and explain what happens if it is unavailable. If the practice transfers stock between offices, evaluate that process separately, including the authorized action and the receiving office's understanding of the transfer.
A system quantity is a record that may need reconciliation; it is not a substitute for investigating a discrepancy. If a frame is physically present but the recorded quantity differs, follow the inventory process instead of silently changing a number to make the order proceed. The inventory counting guide explains how to preserve the reason for a correction.
Review the complete optical order
Before an order is sent onward, staff should review the selected frame, lens configuration and required measurements against the intended order. Identify who can confirm each detail and which questions require the clinician or another qualified person. A complete-looking screen should not replace the practice's review procedure.
Ask the presenter to show how an employee finds an order in progress and understands what remains unfinished. Introduce a correction before external submission, then review the consequence for the order and any associated balance. The test should reveal how staff avoid proceeding with details they know are uncertain.
Jelo's optical POS workflow is the relevant product area for this evaluation. Keep the retail order, the lab submission and the payment status distinct. They may be connected in the workflow, but each represents a different event and should have its own evidence.
Separate payment collection from order completion
Review the amount due, the payment method and the status of the collection before marking a financial task complete. A payment link sent to a patient is not the same as a confirmed payment. A processor response, an order balance and a bank payout are also different records that may need reconciliation.
Jelo uses Stripe as its payment processor. The confirmed Jelo processing rate is 3.5% plus $1.30 per transaction. For example, a $200 transaction has an illustrative processing charge of $8.30 under that rate: $7.00 from the percentage plus $1.30. This calculation does not describe refunds, disputes or other contractual treatment, which should be confirmed separately when relevant.
Include a payment exception in the demo, such as an unfinished collection or a correction requiring authorized review. Do not make a real charge as part of a general sales rehearsal. The payment processing guide explains how to evaluate collection, reconciliation and the questions that remain specific to your account.
Check the lab response independently
A retail order can exist before a lab has accepted the corresponding work. Staff need to understand what has been prepared, what has been submitted and what response came back from the external workflow. Avoid treating an internal order status as proof that every outside step is complete.
Jelo's VisionWeb integration launched in September 2026. A practice still needs to confirm the relevant account, lab and configuration requirements for its intended use. Review the VisionWeb page and ask to demonstrate the specific connection your practice plans to use. Availability of the integration does not establish compatibility with every lab or account arrangement.
In the rehearsal, ask what staff do when a response requires attention or when the expected confirmation is missing. Record the source reference and the next owner. Repeatedly submitting work without understanding the previous response can create additional confusion, so the acceptance test should include the review of an unresolved external step.
Prepare the billing handoff from the actual record
Billing begins with the services and documentation that actually apply to the encounter. The responsible team should review the record and the relevant payer requirements before treating a claim as ready. This guide describes operational coordination; it does not select codes, determine coverage or establish medical necessity.
Identify what the billing team needs from the clinician and how a request for clarification returns to the correct person. A question about missing documentation should not be silently resolved by changing a clinical fact. The person responsible for the record should review the issue through the practice's approved process.
Ask to see an unresolved billing item as well as a completed example. The billing and coding workflow can help structure the discussion, while payer-specific and clinical decisions require the appropriate qualified review. The goal is to understand the handoff and the evidence, not to infer that a software label guarantees a payable claim.
Understand Taiga's role and the service fee
Jelo's owner confirms that insurance and payer work is handled through Taiga. The confirmed charge is 10% of reimbursement, separate from the platform subscription and card-processing charges. The AI biller is available in beta, with no usage cap during beta and future usage limits planned.
Before using the service, review the accounts and payer requirements relevant to your practice. Identify what information your staff provide, how requests for additional information are received and who is responsible for unresolved items. Do not infer universal payer coverage, autonomous appeals or guaranteed reimbursement from the name of the service.
Keep the financial basis visible in your operating plan. A percentage of reimbursement is not the same as a percentage of charges or a per-claim fee. If your practice needs a precise definition of the reimbursement basis or the treatment of a particular adjustment, request that clarification during the commercial review rather than assuming an answer.
Reconcile the response before closing the work
When a payer response arrives, the billing owner needs to understand how it relates to the claim and the financial record. Payment, adjustment, denial and remaining balance are different outcomes. The next action should follow the actual response and the practice's approved review process.
Use a source reference, an assigned owner and a next review point for unresolved work. A task should not disappear merely because someone opened the response. Conversely, a follow-up action can be completed while the broader claim remains open, so define what each status means to your team.
The claim follow-up guide provides a practical queue and review approach. Keep patient-level information in approved systems and use aggregate counts for general process reporting. This preserves a useful distinction between managing work and claiming a financial result that has not yet occurred.
Rehearse one ordinary path and several exceptions
Begin with a straightforward fictional visit so everyone understands the sequence. Then add exceptions one at a time: incomplete intake, a documentation question, an unavailable frame variant, an unfinished payment and an unresolved payer response. Ask the receiving staff member to identify the next action without relying on the presenter to narrate it.
Record the point at which the workflow becomes unclear. The cause may be missing configuration, a training need, an unanswered requirement or an unsupported task. Each needs a different response. Use the software evaluation worksheet to keep those distinctions visible.
A successful rehearsal does not require every task to be completed instantly. It requires the practice to know what is ready, what is waiting, who owns the next step and where the evidence belongs. That is the practical value of evaluating the entire patient workflow rather than judging isolated screens.
Review the workflow after the first operating period
After launch, ask each role which handoff causes the most uncertainty. Review a small sample within the approved practice environment and compare it with the accepted process. Look for repeated missing information, unclear office context or tasks that have no obvious owner.
Choose one improvement at a time and define how the team will verify it. The practice operations worksheet can help measure completion against a consistent eligible population, but it does not prove clinical quality, financial performance or software causation. Use the counts as a prompt for investigation.
Bring unresolved product questions to a demo or workflow discussion with Joel or Loreli. A concrete scenario gives the conversation a useful starting point: the record staff begin with, the action they need to take and the result they need to observe. That makes the next improvement easier to evaluate and implement.