How we write and review the Hanah blog
Hanah publishes this blog to explain our product, clinical documentation workflows and how we evaluate AI scribes. We have a commercial interest in Hanah. Our comparisons and recommendations should be read with that interest in mind.
Who writes the articles
Aaya, our practising physiotherapist and Clinical Lead, is the author for clinical documentation and patient-care articles. Ahmed, our co-founder and CEO, is the author for technology, benchmark and comparison articles.
Each article links to its author profile. Articles attributed to the Hanah team remain team articles unless an individual takes responsibility for the byline. A founder’s or clinician’s role alone does not mean they reviewed every article.
Sources and examples
Our publishing standard is to link factual clinical, regulatory and competitor claims to primary sources where available. Inline citations show which source supports a statement; a source list gathers external links for reference. A linked source is not an endorsement of Hanah.
Worked patient examples must be labelled as fictional or illustrative unless they are real cases used with appropriate permission. Documentation guides explain how to record clinical decisions; the treating clinician remains responsible for assessment, decisions and the record.
AI assistance and human review
We use AI tools to help draft, organise and edit content. AI assistance is not clinical verification. A “Reviewed by” credit appears only when a named reviewer has actually checked the article; the credit includes their role and the date. An article without that credit should not be assumed to have had a separate clinical or technical review.
Comparisons and benchmarks
Competitor features and prices are dated snapshots. Check the provider’s current terms before buying. We distinguish published product information from our own tests and identify missing information as unverified, rather than proof that a feature does not exist.
For Hanah-run benchmarks, read the method, test date, sample size and limitations with the results. Blind grading does not make a vendor-run test independent. Historical posts describe the run cited in that post; newer results may differ. Our benchmark and accuracy reports link to the evidence.
Updates and corrections
Published dates record the original publication. Updated dates record substantive content or structural changes, with an update note explaining their scope. A formatting update does not imply that every linked guideline, price or product claim has been rechecked. Review dates are recorded separately.
Our review standard is to revisit evergreen guides at least annually and recheck changing product, pricing, privacy and regulatory claims when updating articles or when a change is reported. Clinical and compliance guidance needs an appropriately qualified reviewer before receiving a review credit.
Found an error or an outdated claim? Email hello@hanah.health with the article URL and the passage concerned. Material corrections should be explained in the article’s update note.