Frequently asked questions

No. Each stack runs on its own. Teams commonly start with one or two and add the rest as the program grows, because the suppliers, facilities, and rules are already configured after the first implementation.

The difference is the shared record. Modules typically pass data between themselves; the stacks read and write the same requisition, credential, shift, and invoice, so there is nothing to sync or reconcile between them.

The one attached to a deadline. Most teams begin with Compliance or Billing because those problems have dates on them. Answer a few questions in Build Your Stack & Solution and it will name the stacks that match the problems you pick.

Requirements are hierarchical — global standards first, then facility, profession, and unit layers on top. Primary source verification and configurable expiration alerts apply to every worker under those rules, so an ICU standard can differ from a clinic standard without maintaining two systems.

Secure APIs into HRIS, ATS, scheduling, and payroll. The purpose is that hours and credentials stop being re-keyed: approved time flows to billing with the correct rates already applied, and credential status flows back to whoever needs to see it.

Yes, when you configure it that way. The Scheduling Stack offers open shifts to PRN and internal float pool staff on your rules before anything releases to agency suppliers, which is where most premium spend gets avoided.

Documentation is assembled continuously against Joint Commission and CMS review formats rather than at survey time, so a review request is answered from what already exists instead of days of pulling files.

The distinction is where accountability sits. Outsourcing typically moves a function to a vendor with its own process, its own system, and its own definition of done. A service layer puts trained specialists inside your platform, working your rules, with every action visible to you. Standards and approvals stay with your facility.

A useful test: if you can name what is expiring, who is underperforming, and which requisitions are open, but none of it is being worked to completion, that is capacity. If you cannot answer those questions at all, fix the platform configuration first — a service layer on top of unclear rules just adds people to the confusion.

Document collection and chase, primary source verification, requirement configuration and upkeep, audit packet assembly, exception handling on agreed thresholds, and compliance reporting to your leadership. All of it recorded in the Compliance Stack with the same audit trail your own staff would leave.

Requisition build and release, submission review and pre-screening, interview coordination, supplier chase on open roles, ongoing agency pool management including scorecards and tiering, and the handoff from offer through start date.

No. The hiring decision stays with your manager. What changes is what reaches them — a screened short list against criteria they approved, rather than every submission from every agency. Managers can always request the full submission pool, and the screening criteria are theirs to adjust.

Yes, and it is the common path. Because both services run against the same configured suppliers, facilities, and rules, adding the second is a staffing change rather than a new implementation. Most teams start with whichever function is currently costing them shifts.

Yes, and most facilities do. A common split is that our team handles collection, verification, and audit prep while your coordinator retains exception approvals. The boundary is set at implementation and can move as the program changes.

The technology is identical — the same six stacks, the same record, the same rules. Workforce is self-managed: your team does the credentialing follow-up and supplier management. Workforce Plus adds LaborStack specialists who execute those services for you. You are not buying more software; you are buying the people to run it.

When you want every service managed rather than a selected few — full program ownership, standardized across sites, including the parts Plus leaves with your team. Plus is the right answer while you still want to own the program and only need specific functions executed. Multi-facility systems standardizing a fragmented program usually land at MSP.

An MSP runs the staffing program — coordinating suppliers, managing relationships, handling day-to-day operations. A workforce platform is the technology those operations run on. Platform technology can be supplier-neutral software that manages multiple agency relationships without participating in fulfillment, which is what separates oversight from suppliers.

Yes. Self-managed programs use the platform directly, with the facility owning supplier relationships and the system enforcing the rules. That is exactly what the Workforce tier is.

No. Neutrality is a property of the platform, not the tier you buy. Distribution rules, tiering, and supplier scorecards stay facility-defined and visible in your instance. Our team executes those rules; it does not set them, and there is no hidden prioritization of any agency.

Most healthcare workforce platform implementations take 8–12 weeks depending on organization size and complexity, with healthcare-focused templates shortening the configuration work. Adding a service to an existing implementation is measured in weeks, because the suppliers, facilities, rules, and integrations are already in place.

Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access so users see only their facilities and units, and end-to-end encrypted API connections. LaborStack is advancing toward SOC certification as part of an ongoing security assurance commitment.