Improving Health Record Access and Care Continuity on Apollo 24/7
A walk through three Apollo 24/7 flows, what works in them, and where patients get stuck
Phase 01 · Product teardown
Improving Health Record Access and Care Continuity on Apollo 24/7
✳The problem they went after
Apollo 24/7 bundles doctor consultations, lab bookings, medicine delivery and health records into one app, which makes it easy to assume the experience is joined up. This teardown tests that assumption across the three flows patients actually live in: sign-up and profile creation, service booking and payment, and getting to health records.
✳What they actually did
The teardown names what works before what does not. Multi-profile management for families, a clean booking-to-payment handoff and centralised lab reports hold up well. Friction shows up as missing doctor ratings, no way for a patient to reschedule an appointment themselves, and health package reports split by department rather than grouped under the package that was bought. Three problem hypotheses follow, ranked by impact on retention and revenue, alongside a competitive map against Fortis, Max Healthcare and Manipal.
✳What you can take from it
Worth stealing
- Three flows audited: sign-up, booking and payment, records
- Friction logged next to what already works well
- Problem hypotheses ranked by retention and revenue impact
- Competitive map against Fortis, Max Healthcare and Manipal
Read this if
Writing your first teardown and unsure how to end it
The transferable bitA teardown earns its keep when it ends somewhere. This one converts observations into three ranked hypotheses instead of a list of gripes, and ranks them on retention and revenue rather than on how annoying each felt in the moment. That ordering step is what separates a teardown from a review.
✳The submission itself
Open the PDF →Reading on a phone? The embedded viewer is cramped — open the PDF in a new tab instead.
Phase 02 · User research
Fixing Fragmented Health Records on Apollo 24/7
✳The problem they went after
Patients using Apollo 24/7 alongside non-Apollo hospitals cannot get their records into one place. Caregivers keep paper files and digital folders by hand, non-Apollo doctors reject Apollo lab results and order the tests again, and symptom-to-specialist triage misfires often enough to notice. The cost lands as wasted money, wasted time and eroding trust in the platform.
✳What they actually did
Three pain points come out of the research: records fragmented across providers, lab package choices with no clear differentiation, and no post-visit reminders or follow-up orchestration. Two interviews, one with a product manager handling family care and one with a caregiver for elderly parents, surfaced identical workarounds independently: spreadsheets, physical folders, calls to the local pharmacy. The direction that follows is a Universal Health Vault with camera, upload and email capture, where OCR and medical entity recognition auto-tag each document onto one timeline.
✳What you can take from it
Worth stealing
- Repeated workarounds across interviews treated as signal
- Retests ordered by non-Apollo doctors as a concrete cost
- OCR plus medical entity recognition tagging onto one timeline
- Follow-up orchestration turning advice into one-tap rebooking
Read this if
Turning a handful of interviews into a defensible problem statement
The transferable bitWatch how the same workaround appearing in two unrelated interviews gets treated as evidence. Spreadsheets and physical folders are users building the product themselves, and the proposal here is largely a faster version of what they already do. Copying an existing workaround is usually a safer first bet than inventing a new behaviour.
✳The submission itself
Open the PDF →Reading on a phone? The embedded viewer is cramped — open the PDF in a new tab instead.
Phase 03 · Solution design
Building a Unified Health Records Vault on Apollo's Platform
✳The problem they went after
Patients moving between Apollo and other providers have nowhere to store, retrieve or share their history. Records sit in physical files, email attachments and third-party apps. The bill arrives as repeat diagnostic tests, doctors consulting without context, and Apollo looking less like the comprehensive health platform it claims to be.
✳What they actually did
Records come in three ways: camera capture, file upload and email parsing. OCR and medical entity recognition tag each one by patient, test name, date, lab and diagnosis. An account-aggregator model, essentially UPI but for health data, would pull verified imports from partner labs and hospitals, while ABDM and DigiLocker integrations bring in government-verified records under explicit, time-bound consent. On top of that structured base sit longitudinal summaries, trend comparisons, care plans with reminders and reorder flows, and a Medical Passport view for fast clinical handoff.
✳What you can take from it
Worth stealing
- Account-aggregator model borrowed from UPI for financial data
- ABDM and DigiLocker imports under time-bound consent
- Medical Passport view built for fast clinical handoffs
- Gamified vault rewards driving consistent record consolidation
Read this if
Designing data ingestion where consent and verification are part of the product
The transferable bitIngestion, structuring and the features patients see are treated as separate layers, so the summaries and Medical Passport only exist because the tagging happened first. Consent is designed in rather than bolted on, which matters in any product touching regulated records.
✳The submission itself
Open the PDF →Reading on a phone? The embedded viewer is cramped — open the PDF in a new tab instead.
Phase 04 · The PRD
Building a Universal Health Vault Inside Apollo 24/7
✳The problem they went after
Patients and caregivers split across Apollo and non-Apollo hospitals cannot see all their records in one place. They repeat lab tests, keep files by hand across folders and cloud drives, and treat Apollo as a booking tool rather than a health companion. Three personas carry the problem: someone managing family care across providers, a caregiver for elderly parents, and a health manager coordinating chronic care.
✳What they actually did
The PRD proposes three features that depend on each other. The Universal Health Vault captures records by camera, upload or email, with OCR and medical entity recognition tagging by person, date, test type and diagnosis onto one timeline. Structured Summaries turn raw documents into actionable insights and trend comparisons. Follow-up Orchestration converts doctor recommendations into reminders, rebooking shortcuts and medicine top-up prompts. The serviceable market is sized at 7.4 million Apollo active users who visit other providers or manage family members, with a year-one target of 2.4 million uploading external records.
✳What you can take from it
Worth stealing
- Three features scoped so each one feeds the next
- Market narrowed to 7.4 million multi-provider and caregiving users
- Metrics chosen to test the retention thesis directly
- Personas mapped to distinct care coordination jobs
Read this if
Writing a PRD and struggling to connect market sizing to success metrics
The transferable bitReduced 30-day churn, weekly active days among uploading users and multi-profile household growth all test the same claim: that keeping your records here is what makes you stay. Tying a PRD's metrics back to its thesis that tightly is rare. Note too that the market number is carved down to the users the feature actually serves.
✳The submission itself
Open the PDF →Reading on a phone? The embedded viewer is cramped — open the PDF in a new tab instead.
