At a Melbourne health-tech summit, the launch of Heidi II sparked a direct clash with the nation’s dominant general-practice EMR, Best Practice, which issued a Level 1 Critical Alert to all its customers.
Heidi’s founder takes the stage
Dr Tom Kelly, the enigmatic founder of Heidi, is known for bold statements that divide observers. Some describe him as a charismatic outsider; others see a hubristic strategist seeking to reshape the medical-software market.
During a panel, Kelly challenged an Oracle Cerner representative, claiming the global EMR giant was “too slow and old” and would eventually adopt Heidi’s technology. He added, “Oracle’s tools will be built with our underlying tech. That’s what’s going to happen.”
The Oracle representative maintained a polite demeanor, but his restrained reaction highlighted the unusual directness of Kelly’s approach in an industry that typically follows more measured protocols.
Best Practice’s emergency warning
Almost simultaneously, the CEO of Best Practice sent a confidential email titled “Level 1 Critical Alert” to every client. The notice warned that using Heidi II could jeopardize clinical data integrity, pose privacy and security risks, and potentially breach TGA medical-device regulations.
Heidi II enables licence holders to direct AI agents that autonomously query the EMR and pull longitudinal patient records for upcoming consultations. The feature promises faster data retrieval but relies on older, slower automation technology.
Read Also: Iranian doctors face exam cancellation uncertainty
In the midst of the unfolding drama, reporters managed a brief interview with Dr Kelly. He appeared calm, acknowledging the alert without visible alarm, and offered a measured comment on the situation.
Kelly said, “The records [vendors] can do what they like with their end users, I think it’s within their rights to limit the use of products,” he said. “I wish that there was a constructive engagement with innovators in the space, and I think their priority should be – it’s not their data ultimately – so their priority should be giving read and write [access] into different systems. “We’ve been trying to integrate with Best Practice for three years, and they’ve not made any attempt to give us actual reasonable access.”
One line from the alert read, “The three key elements of the email were that using Heidi II was: A risk to the clinical integrity of their data and therefore a patient risk; A high-level privacy and security risk; and Possibly a breach.”
Interview captures Best Practice’s licensing stance and Tom Kelly’s response
After several weeks of internal review, Best Practice concluded that Heidi II’s AI agents, which let licence owners pull complete longitudinal records, violated the user licence terms. The company described the capability as an egregious breach of its contractual conditions. It issued a formal alert to its customers based on that assessment. The decision followed a prolonged period of deliberation by Best Practice’s oversight team.
Business motivations behind the clash
The dispute reflects deeper commercial interests. The alert framed the use of Heidi II as a patient safety issue, yet the vendor’s own analysis suggests the underlying robotic-process-automation engine is slow, cumbersome, and likely cost-prohibitive when pricing is applied. In conclusion, the clash between Heidi and Best Practice highlights the complex and often conflicting interests in the medical software industry, with companies handling issues of data integrity, patient safety, and commercial viability.
