Narrative Performance Lab

Narrative Performance Index™

In high-stakes maternal care innovation, clinical urgency is real — and still, adoption moves through responsibility, workflow absorption, and governance defensibility. The NPI surfaces how your narrative posture interacts with those forces.

Your submission shows strong problem clarity and high-impact outcomes — and a very specific adoption friction: “We don’t want to be responsible for missing a patient’s signs.” That is a governance + accountability fear, not a mission gap.

Narrative Spectrum

Contained Force → Catalytic Force

Perfectionist

Rigor + safety signals. Liability-aware posture.

Engineer

Proof + mechanics. Builds trust through metrics.

Historian

Precedent builder. Context expands.

Caretaker

Mission-forward trust. Safety for patients first.

Architect

Defines ownership. Converts fear into guardrails.

Evangelist

Urgency driver. Can trigger containment reflexes.

Illusionist

Future-framer. Must anchor proof timing.

Unicorn

Coherence + velocity. Manages exposure.

NPI Interpretation — Emagine

Courtney’s submission read
Archetype stack Engineer (dominant) · Perfectionist (secondary) · Caretaker (under pressure)

Your narrative is strongest when it’s grounded in measurable improvement: RPM mechanics, clinical risk reduction, and the quality metrics your platform can move (SMM, readmissions, BP control, PROs). That’s Engineer force — it creates credibility and makes value legible.

The primary stall signal is Perfectionist: “We don’t want to be responsible for missing signs.” In provider and academic environments, that concern is not pushback — it’s a request for role clarity and defensible monitoring expectations.

Under pressure, you naturally lean into mission and impact (Caretaker). That builds trust — but in governance rooms, mission alone won’t resolve responsibility. The unlock is to convert mission into guardrails: who monitors, what thresholds trigger escalation, and how liability is bounded.

Your decision environment is also shaped by reimbursement and staffing reality. The system is asking: “Who absorbs the work — and how is it paid for?” The fastest path is a contained operating model that reduces risk and reduces operational load.

Systems Stakeholder Dynamics

Why decisions move — or stall

Core Authority Roles

Clinical Program Director · OBGYN Chair · CMO/Development (nonprofit)

Authority is distributed and often political (especially in academic settings). Decisions require alignment across clinical leadership, program ownership, and resourcing.

  • Primary constraint: committee alignment + resourcing clarity
  • Hidden fear: “we adopt this and inherit a responsibility gap”
  • What moves them: named owner + operating model + clear “who monitors” answer

Risk & Compliance Gatekeeping

Legal · Information Security

These roles protect the institution. They need defensibility: data handling, escalation protocols, and a clear boundary between “monitoring support” and “clinical responsibility transfer.”

  • Primary constraint: liability + security + duty-of-care interpretation
  • Hidden fear: “we created a new obligation we can’t staff”
  • What moves them: bounded responsibility + thresholds + documented protocol

Operational Absorbers

Providers (OBGYN/Midwives) · Program Managers

Providers and program teams feel the burden first. Even when they believe in the solution, they will pause if it adds monitoring workload without reimbursement or staffing coverage.

  • Primary value: patient adoption + clinical integration
  • Limit: cannot absorb “one more dashboard”
  • Best use: design a low-burden workflow + reimbursement path + escalation rules

4-Minute Opener — Committee-Safe Frame

responsibility + workflow clarity

Preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are rising — and the cost of late detection is not just clinical, it’s operational: ED utilization, escalation events, readmissions, and severe maternal morbidity.

Emagine’s Journey Pregnancy platform was built to create earlier warning and earlier action through remote monitoring — pairing a patient experience with a provider layer that makes trends visible before risk compounds.

We recognize the two questions that immediately shape adoption: who monitors, and how responsibility is bounded. This is not about transferring clinical duty-of-care to a platform. It’s about structuring a defensible workflow: clear thresholds, clear escalation rules, and a model that reduces burden rather than adding a new monitoring job.

The goal is contained adoption: a protocol the institution can defend, a workflow teams can absorb, and outcomes that map directly to existing quality priorities.

90-Second Close

bounded next step

The clinical case for earlier detection is strong. The adoption decision is whether the institution can implement it without inheriting a new, unfunded responsibility burden.

The next step is defining responsible entry: who owns monitoring oversight, what thresholds trigger escalation, how information is secured, and how reimbursement or resourcing is handled — so care teams are supported, not stretched.

If we align on a bounded operating model, this becomes infrastructure for maternal risk reduction — not an added obligation.