Whistleblower hotline intake and triage — every report, in any language, to the right owner the same day
Every concern, in any language, reaches the right owner within hours, and the reporter stays protected.
See one case, screen by screen ↓A report lands overnight: an anonymous 11-minute hotline call in Portuguese, a receipt photo sent later through the portal. Before anyone can decide who investigates, someone has to read it, get it translated, work out what is actually alleged, check whether it was reported before, and make sure the case does not land with someone in the accused manager’s reporting line.
Done by hand, that takes days — while the 7-day acknowledgement clock runs, and the reporter, who holds only a report key, waits to hear that anyone is listening. About half of reporters are anonymous, so the first questions back to them are the ones that decide whether the case can be investigated at all.
Estimated split of the 3.1 days (74 hours) a report took to reach its owner by hand, and of the 3.2-hour median with the solution.
Seven specialist agents read, translate, classify, link and score every report and draft the reply; the intake lead decides who owns it.
An anonymous sales representative calls the hotline at 02:14 from São Paulo: a speaker meeting was paid for but never held. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana opens the switchboard: 5 new reports since yesterday in 5 languages, 7 waiting for her decision, 2 acknowledgements due within 5 days. Every report flows from the channel it came in on — hotline, web form, email, a manager — through the agents to the team that owns it, and every legal clock is on the same screen.
Clocks running: “Privacy · possible data breach — SU-2308 · 72-hour assessment ends Oct 9 21:10.”
SU-2304 arrives from the hotline vendor: an 11-minute call in Portuguese (Brazil), anonymous, 10 sentences, plus a receipt photo added at 02:31 through the portal with the report key. A health detail about a witness is already masked. The acknowledgement is due by Oct 14.
Dana presses Run triage. The intake reader reads the call and the text on the receipt photo, the translator aligns all 10 sentences Portuguese to English, the classifier pulls out 6 facts and 4 issue types, the link finder searches earlier reports and open cases, the guard masks and checks conflicts, and the proposer scores it — High, 90 of 100.
“Nothing is sent or routed until you decide.”
A district manager paid a public-hospital pharmacist R$ 18,000 as “consulting” for a Corventa speaker meeting on September 12 that never took place, then said the reporter’s bonus was “under review”. Each fact — the person named, who received money, when, where it is recorded, the witness — cites the sentence it came from, in Portuguese and English side by side. And the records do not agree.
“A meeting of 14 and a dinner for 2 on the same night — the investigator should pull the attendance list first.”
Primary issue: HCP inducement — a fee for a service that was not delivered. Also bribery and corruption, because the pharmacist works for a public hospital and decides its formulary; retaliation, for the bonus remark; and fraud, for an attendance list for a meeting that did not happen. The score adds up in plain sight: +15 for the issue type, +20 for a public official, +15 for a threat to the reporter, and so on to 90 of 100.
“Switch a factor off if you disagree — the proposal updates.”
Two matches, each with its reason. EV-55102 in the events system, 96 %: a Corventa speaker meeting at Vila Aurora on Sep 12 for R$ 18,000 with 14 attendees — same date, hospital and amount. SU-2271, 87 %: a June web report about “consulting” and meals at another hospital in the same district, closed for not enough information. Dana links or rejects each one.
“Checked and not linked: IC-1042 Speaker programs — Atlanta North: same product, different country and people.”
High-severity HCP inducement goes to Global investigations, so the proposed owner is Lena Ortiz. Ana Souza in Latin America is informed for regional context and language, and Elena Novak in Legal advises under privilege because a public official is involved. The privacy and conflict guard keeps the regional director, Brazil South, out: he is in the manager’s reporting line, and the reporter asked that he is not told.
Anonymous reporter — answers through the portal with a key; caller number not stored.
The acknowledgement thanks the reporter, confirms the report of October 7 is reviewed confidentially by an independent team and restates protection from retaliation. Four open follow-up questions — who signed the attendance list, when the bonus remark was made and who was there, what happened in June, whether other meetings were also not held — each with an English line for the team. Dana approves and sends them through the portal.
“Open, non-leading questions. They never ask who the reporter is or say what others reported.”
Dana routes SU-2304 to Lena Ortiz. Routing sends the acknowledgement in Portuguese (Brazil) and opens case IC-1049 in case management with the cited summary. The 7-day acknowledgement is sent; feedback to the reporter is due by Jan 7, 2027. Every agent step and her decision are on the report’s activity trail.
66 reports in the last 30 days, 1.67 per 100 employees a year. Report to routing at a median 3.2 hours, 100 % acknowledged within 7 days, 96 % of reporters told the outcome within 3 months — with what people raise, by region and issue, and how each owner keeps their clocks.
The same report, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven specialist agents read, translate, classify, link and score every report and draft the reply; the intake lead decides who owns it.
Reads each new report from the hotline vendor — call transcript, web form, email or manager note — and its attachments, including text in photos and PDFs.
Translates every sentence into English and keeps the original beside it, sentence by sentence, so any fact can be checked in the reporter’s own words.
Pulls out who, what, where and when with the sentence each came from, decides allegation or question, and maps the report to the Speak Up issue types.
Looks for duplicates, earlier reports and open cases about the same people, places or pattern — in the case history, the events system and the third-party register — and shows why each one matches.
Masks personal data that is not needed, keeps the reporter’s identity inside intake, removes anyone in the named person’s management line, and starts the privacy clock or the patient safety hand-off.
Scores severity from the issue type and the factors present, and proposes the owner and who else to inform, with the reason for each.
Drafts the acknowledgement, open follow-up questions and the 3-month feedback in the reporter’s language, with an English line under each, for a person to approve.
Routes each report, approves every reply. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The intake team can ask in plain words what came in, how a report was scored, who is kept out and which clocks are running — or tell it what to change. Answers cite the reporter’s sentences.
Is SU-2304 linked to anything we already have?
Yes — two links. The events system holds EV-55102: a Corventa speaker meeting at Vila Aurora on Sep 12 for R$ 18,000 with 14 signed attendees — the same date, hospital and amount. And SU-2271 (June, same district) described “consulting” and meals for staff at another hospital; it closed for lack of information because that reporter never came back. The receipt shows a dinner for 2 on the night of a meeting of 14.
How was the severity scored?
SU-2304 scores 90 of 100 — High. The issue type (HCP inducement) adds 15; then money to a healthcare professional, a public-hospital pharmacist who decides the formulary, a manager named, a threat to the reporter, a June pattern and a receipt photo. High starts at 60. You can switch any factor off on the triage desk, and change the weights in Settings.
Who is kept out of the case, and why?
The regional director, Brazil South: he is in the manager’s reporting line, and the reporter asked that he is not told. The investigator never sees the reporter’s identity; only intake does, and for SU-2304 nobody does — the reporter is anonymous.
Add a rule: a threat to the reporter opens a retaliation watch
Done. When the agents find a threat or harm to the reporter — like the bonus remark in SU-2304 or the move to night shifts in SU-2309 — HR employee relations is informed and nothing changes in the reporter’s pay, role or shifts for 6 months without review. The rule is on in Settings and recorded in the audit trail.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Routing, severity, clocks and privacy are settings — the agents follow them; a person always decides.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns HCP inducement reports | Regional compliance (by country); High severity to Global investigations | Regional compliance · Global investigations · HR employee relations · Privacy office · Global quality · Ask Compliance helpdesk — for each of 11 issue types |
| Public official or public hospital | Also inform Legal, who advises under privilege | On · Off |
| Adverse event mentioned | Send to patient safety within 1 business day | On · Off |
| Threat or harm to the reporter | Off — retaliation watch with HR employee relations when on | On · Off |
| Severity factor weights | Public official +20, threat to the reporter +15 … High from 60, Medium from 35 | Each of 9 factors from +0 to +30 |
| Remind before the 7-day acknowledgement | 2 days before | 2 days before · 1 day before · On the day |
| Remind before the 3-month feedback | 2 weeks before | 2 weeks before · 1 day before · On the day |
| Mask health details of people other than the person named | On | On · Off (recorded in the audit trail) |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample Speak Up reports · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · deadlines from the EU Whistleblower Directive 2019/1937 (7-day acknowledgement, 3-month feedback). People, companies and products named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It takes each whistleblowing report from your hotline vendor — a call, web form, email or a concern raised by a manager — and turns it into a classified, risk-scored case with a proposed owner. Seven agents read, translate, classify, link, guard and score the report and draft the reply to the reporter; the intake lead decides who owns it.
The translator works sentence by sentence and keeps the original beside the English, so every fact can be checked in the reporter’s own words. Uncertain phrases are flagged, not guessed, and replies to the reporter are written in their language with an English line for the team.
Yes. The reporter’s identity stays in the hotline portal; investigators never see it, and anonymous reporters answer questions with their report key. Caller numbers and IP addresses are not stored, and follow-up questions never ask who the reporter is or say what others reported.
Each issue type adds a base score, and factors found in the report — a public official, a threat to the reporter, related reports, evidence supplied — add points, each shown with its sentence. Your routing rules then propose the owner and who else to inform, with the reason. The intake lead can switch a factor off or choose another owner.
Yes. The privacy and conflict guard looks up the person named in the HR org chart and keeps their management line out of the case, along with anyone the reporter asked to exclude. The owner it proposes is never in the named person’s line.
It keeps the clocks the Directive sets — acknowledgement within 7 days and feedback within 3 months — on every report, reminds owners before they run out, and drafts the acknowledgement and the feedback letter. Routing a report sends its acknowledgement at once. It also runs the 72-hour privacy and 1-day patient safety clocks.
Yes. The agents propose; a named person routes, merges or redirects every report, and approves every message before it reaches the reporter. Their choices and reasons are recorded next to the agents’ proposals.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your Speak Up policy, issue types, routing matrix and acknowledgement templates — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on a sample of your own past reports first.
Every speaker program scored against the OIG's eight red flags, before and after it runs.
1-min filmPayment RecipientsEvery payment to a clinician or teaching hospital matched to the right registry record, with the evidence behind each match.
1-min filmThird-Party Due DiligenceEvery distributor, agent and vendor checked for bribery risk before the contract is signed.
1-min filmWe’ll run Speak Up Intake on a sample of your own past reports.