Internal Discussion Document
Two projects, multiple open questions. This document covers the key decisions we need to align on — with design explorations for the blood portal ready for review.
01 — Blood Testing Portal
A LabPlusArts-style platform connecting patients to diagnostic networks across the Netherlands. These are the open questions that need alignment before development begins.
The project operates in the Netherlands, so the primary domain should be general/Dutch (e.g. naam.nl).
Language versions should be subpages: /pl, /en.
Initially, the only patients will come directly through the clinic since SEO takes 3–6 months minimum (often up to a year) to generate meaningful traffic.
Long-term, for maximum revenue potential and to realistically compete with LabPlusArts, the project should target the general Dutch market — only that gives scale and business sense.
The project must work like LabPlusArts — that's how this market functions in the Netherlands: regional diagnostic network partnerships, no single national integration, finding and negotiating with multiple (potentially dozens of) networks to cover the country. This is the most complex and critical element of the entire project.
Critical PathAre system-generated referral documents (linked to specific collection points and diagnostic networks) sufficient, or does the doctor need to actively issue and sign referrals within the system?
Decision NeededDo we offer only test packages, or individual markers too? Individual markers are more flexible and patient-friendly but lower average revenue; packages simplify the offering and increase order value.
Decision NeededLabPlusArts recently introduced subscriptions. Should we follow?
My take
No. It's unclear if subscriptions are even popular. Patients want specific tests at specific moments. Subscriptions add massive complexity: recurring payments, no-shows, multi-point scheduling across networks, pricing changes, increased operational burden. A one-time purchase model is simpler and more reliable.
What support channels should we offer? Email, phone, WhatsApp, in-app chat? In which languages? This affects both operational load and patient experience.
Discussion02 — MedTolk
Real-time medical interpretation for Polish speakers in the Netherlands. Simpler to launch — fewer external dependencies — but still requires careful planning.
WebRTC is the core session technology (known, operable on own infrastructure). VoIP (e.g. Twilio) adds a professional phone channel, call recording for quality audits, and a fallback. The question isn't "if VoIP" but "why": is centralized logging and phone fallback worth the extra complexity and cost?
Decision NeededRecording can serve quality audits, dispute resolution, and professionalization. But it requires explicit user consent, a retention policy, and controlled access. This needs to be deliberately designed, not treated as a default feature.
Discussion
Domain should be .nl, starting with Polish-only interface.
Key question: do we stay exclusively PL–NL, or plan for other migrant languages (RO, BG, ES)?
If expansion is planned, a neutral international name with language subpages (/pl, /ro, /bg)
is better for long-term SEO than separate sites per language.
Which channels do we offer patients? Email, phone, WhatsApp, in-app chat? Who handles support? This is an operational decision — no separate portal needed on launch.
Discussion