ReportRad is reframing teleradiology with our intelligent routing technology that puts the right subspecialist on the right case immediately, turning expertise that's normally locked behind queues and availability into a strategic lever for faster, safer patient outcomes.
When teleradiology providers tell you they return stroke scans within thirty minutes, they’re hoping you don’t think too hard about this figure. What they usually mean is that a scan is returned within 30 minutes of the images arriving on their system; not from the moment the scan was completed, nor from the moment the patient was brought to the scanner.
What happens during the interim period has, until recently, been absorbed silently into the patient pathway. Industry standard image transfer times for acute scans run from fifteen to forty minutes, but for stroke patients where treatment decisions need to be made within half an hour of scanning that transfer window is a clinical risk.
The fact that this has been accepted as normal by providers, commissioners and the market reveals something important about how teleradiology operates: it has been optimised for speed and supplier convenience, not patient outcomes. And critically, speed has been calculated using the data point that is easiest to measure, not the data point that matters most.
This is the problem ReportRad was built to solve.
What teleradiology got wrong
The conventional teleradiology transaction goes something like this: a department has more work than its internal team can manage, it calls a provider, studies get transferred, reports come back. Volume in, volume out. The service is evaluated on turnaround time and cost per scan.
It is a model geared towards throughput and throughput, as a primary metric, conceals everything that matters about reporting quality.
When a department outsources to a generalist pool, the study gets read. The report gets written. The box gets ticked. But the question of whether the right reporter read that study is one that generalist teleradiology structurally cannot answer, because it was never designed to ask it.
The gap between generalist and subspecialist reporting is measurable in report quality, in MDT confidence and in rates of re-reads. When a report is directed to the appropriate subspecialist rather than the nearest available reporter, the number the number of requested addendum during peer-review fall by almost 40% Fewer corrections, higher confidence and better decisions, all of which leads to faster and more accurate diagnoses.
The architecture of ReportRad
ReportRad was designed around a single principle and that is that every study should be routed to the most appropriate subspecialist for that scan.
Not the next available reporter. Not the closest match from a generalist pool. The right person for that specific study.
Hexarad makes this possible through a network of 350 plus radiologists, underpinned by our proprietary allocation technology that matches each study to the most appropriate specialist. This system is ReportRad 360, maintaining a detailed taxonomy of radiologist skills to enable highly efficient distribution of work in real time. For studies that arrive with a general classification (a CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis, for instance, which could relate to lung cancer, bowel cancer, liver cancer, or any number of other clinical contexts), an LLM-backed process routes the study to the right Radiologist based on the clinical question.
This is not a premium tier for complex cases, it is the standard model, running continuously, for every study, at any volume.
The result is less than 0.1% client-raised issues across all modalities. These numbers are the result of a system redesigned from the ground up.
Rebuilt from scratch and geared for speed
Hexarad’s own integration engine, ReportRad Edge, dramatically speeds up the transfer time of scans, specifically because no third-party integration service was solving this problem adequately.
The industry had normalised transfer delays and accepted manual admin intervention rates of up to 40% of studies, meaning that for nearly half of all scans sent to a teleradiology provider, someone at the trust had to manually chase missing information, retrieve prior images, or correct a transfer error.
Edge reduces that intervention rate to approximately 1%.
CT head transfers, which once took 15 - 20 minutes, now complete in around three minutes on a standard hospital internet connection by using Edge. Full-body trauma scans, which previously took up to 40 minutes, now arrive in five to six. And because the integration is fully automated, with proactive monitoring and real-time alerts, neither the trust's clinical staff nor its admin team carries any of the burden.
For departments that have long accepted transfer delays as a fixed cost of teleradiology, this is not merely a marginal increase in speed. It’s an entirely new engine.
The question of quality governance
With conventional teleradiology, accountability for reporting quality is diffuse, with large reporter pools and variable subspecialty coverage. Discrepancy management is often manual too, which means reports are often chased over email, making things hard to track, and easy to lose
Hexarad replaces that entirely with Rapport, a dedicated product that turns discrepancy management into a structured, auditable workflow. Every submission is logged, every response is timestamped, and every outcome is exportable on demand. This removes the administrative burden of chasing correspondence and it also provides departments with a complete and ready-made audit trail for internal incident management, rather than one assembled retrospectively.
The investigation and continuous-improvement process still happens, as every discrepancy is reviewed and the findings shared, but Rapport is what makes that process objectively traceable.
“Our ability to identify and solve problems end-to-end comes from having radiologists and technologists working together,” says Tim Baker, Hexarad’s CTO. “Not in separate teams with occasional cross-functional meetings, but in the same room, pulling on the same problems from the first principles of both disciplines.”
Reframing the question
The NHS has been conditioned to evaluate teleradiology primarily on price per scan and turnaround time. ReportRad asks a different question: why can't you have a high-quality service at the right price?
The most obvious cost is the clinical risk, which is real, measurable and significantly impacts the care of patients. But what about the operational cost of the MDT time spent on re-reads; the repeat imaging; the downstream clinical decisions made on reports that were technically complete but not subspecialist-matched? Or the governance cost of the audit trail that flagged discrepancies too late?
This is what a partnership with Hexarad is designed to prevent. ReportRad is embedded in how the department runs, sharing accountability for outcomes rather than handing back a finished report and moving on. Subspecialist matching, continuous discrepancy review, and a transparent audit trail are fundamentals of how our partnerships with NHS Trusts operate day to day, with Hexarad's clinical leadership and governance working alongside the department's own.
Dr. Amy Davis, CCO and co-founder of Hexarad says: "With Hexarad, we remove the hidden friction of imprecision and share responsibility for the outcome. That's what makes the service faster, more accountable and more transparent than anything the conventional model has to offer. This is a radically reinvented model of care, built on partnership.