Panel · Use case · Innovation

Clinician Advisory Rehearsal.

LiveStakeholder Rehearsal

Rehearse a clinician advisory board on a new digital therapeutic with simulated clinician, informatics and payer voices.

MeetingA clinician advisory board on a prescription digital therapeutic

ConstituenciesPhysician, informatics lead, payer, patient advocate

ReaderDigital health and medical leads

Not askedMarket research

DepthStandard, four seats

Clinician Advisory Rehearsal is a ready-made use case for Innovation. It ships under the Stakeholder Rehearsal template.

For digital health leads. You get each simulated constituency's position, where they conflict, the objections with proposed responses and what each would need to move. The constituencies are simulated, not consulted. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

How will a clinician advisory board of a treating physician, a clinical informatics lead, a payer and a patient advocate react to a prescription digital therapeutic?

Who is simulated

Clinicians judge software on evidence, workflow and liability. The seats are briefed on the product class and on how other systems have assessed it.

Constituency simulated	What it is asked	What it works from
Treating physician	Whether the product helps patients and fits the visit.^{1Digital Therapeutics Alliance. Understanding DTx.}	Trial evidence and the Alliance’s categories.
Clinical informatics lead	Integration with records, data security and workflow burden.	Implementation experience.
Payer	Whether the evidence supports coverage as a device or a benefit.^{2National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies.,3Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Digital Health Applications (DiGA): Interesting facts. DiGA Guide version 3.6.}	The NICE framework and the German directory.
Patient advocate	Access, usability and who is left out.	Patient group statements.

What the rehearsal does

Workflow objections come first. In practice, objections to software are often about time and integration before evidence. The report ranks the objections as the rehearsal found them and cites what it can.

Evidence tiers frame the payer seat. The payer is briefed on tiers by risk and function, and on the German fast track as one example of provisional listing.^{2National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies.,3Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Digital Health Applications (DiGA): Interesting facts. DiGA Guide version 3.6.}

What a rehearsal cannot tell you. Real clinicians respond to the product demonstration, which the simulation cannot reproduce.

Recommended length

Standard

Four constituencies are in the room. Standard depth gives each a seat and ends with what a rehearsal cannot tell you, in about four pages.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the rehearsal checks

The rehearsal states the assumptions it makes about each constituency, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this meeting:

Clinicians will see the product as an addition to care and not a replacement.
The record system allows the integration the product needs.
Patients will use the software as prescribed.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

Digital Therapeutics Alliance, Understanding DTx.^{1Digital Therapeutics Alliance. Understanding DTx.}
NICE, Evidence Standards Framework for digital health technologies.^{2National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies.}
BfArM, DiGA directory and fast-track process.^{3Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Digital Health Applications (DiGA): Interesting facts. DiGA Guide version 3.6.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any clinician objection with no source, any claim about integration not confirmed with a technical lead, and any seat that agrees without a condition.

What arrives

The question put, and who was simulated
The stakeholder map
Each constituency's position
Where they conflict
Objections and responses
What each would need to move, and the order to engage
What a rehearsal cannot tell you

What it will not do

The constituencies are simulated by AI specialists and are not the real people. The rehearsal prepares you for objections you can anticipate and does not predict the live room.

It does not replace an advisory board with real clinicians.

It is not research with real stakeholders. The constituencies are simulated by AI specialists from stated sources, and they are not the real people.

It does not predict what the live room will say. It prepares you for the objections you can anticipate.

It does not script a response to be repeated. The responses are for you to test and to adapt.

References

[1] Digital Therapeutics Alliance. Understanding DTx. Read on 9 October 2026.
[2] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. Not read in full.
[3] Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Digital Health Applications (DiGA): Interesting facts. DiGA Guide version 3.6. Read on 9 October 2026.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.