Matthew Guldin writes about healthcare technology and reviews conference proposals, including for the HIMSS Global Health Conference. Guldin's posts focus on how to show the real-world impact of technology: the problem it addressed, what changed, measurable results, and lessons other healthcare organizations can use.
6.3K followersHealth ITBased on 12 posts · latest Aug 2026
Useful for sharpening healthcare technology case studies and HIMSS conference proposals around measurable impact.
Best for
Healthcare IT consultancies and teams preparing HIMSS submissions or implementation case studies.
Not for
Reach-led consumer health or medical device brand awareness campaigns.
Key takeaways
Implementation is not an outcome; impact is.
Proposals should show baseline, credible results, and lessons learned.
Case studies should explain clinician pushback or a metric that failed to move.
Check first: Confirm audience demographics, engagement data, and whether they offer sponsorship or partnership terms.
Main ideas
Implementation is not an outcome; impact is · Don't let a provider-vendor case study become a product pitch · The most useful proposals admit what didn't work
Matthew Guldin writes about healthcare technology, conference proposals, and how healthcare organizations can show whether an initiative made a real difference.
In posts about HIMSS proposals, they argue that a strong case study starts with the problem and baseline, explains what changed in practice, and connects credible results to the original goal.
They also write about healthcare market structures, including private-equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
These posts offer a practical lens on implementation stories and the business forces shaping healthcare.
Ask for more background before making a broader claim about what Guldin is best known for.
Guldin’s clearest contribution is a usable standard for separating evidence of impact from descriptions of technology.
In posts about HIMSS proposals, they ask writers to show a baseline, describe workflow and governance changes, report results that match the original problem, and explain what did not work.
A claim about reducing clinician workload, for example, should say how much time was returned; a case study should also explain clinician pushback or a metric that failed to move.
Their test: can another organization take away a method, decision framework, or lesson—not just a product description?
A separate post on private-equity joint ventures explores ownership, incentives, control, and oversight.
Follow Guldin for concrete guidance on making healthcare technology case studies more useful and questions about how healthcare partnerships may reshape services.
Matthew Guldin writes about healthcare technology and conference programming, often from the perspective of someone who reads many HIMSS proposals.
Read more
One argument runs through most of their posts: a health IT story is useful only when it shows what changed.
Guldin wants a specific problem and baseline, credible before-and-after numbers tied to that problem, and an honest account of what went wrong—details another health system can reuse.
They also want provider-vendor case studies to avoid becoming product pitches.
A separate post reveals Guldin's interest in market structure, examining private equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems and the questions those arrangements raise about ownership and control.
Implementation is not an outcome; impact is
Guldin reviews proposals for the HIMSS Global Health Conference and says the ones that hold attention are rarely about the newest technology.
Read more
They make clear what changed.
A proposal should start with a specific problem, not "we implemented AI" or "we built an interoperability platform," explain who was affected and what things looked like beforehand, then report results tied to that starting point.
HIMSS explicitly asks reviewers to look for completed results, KPIs, or outcomes.
The numbers need not be spectacular, just credible and connected to the original problem.
Guldin also checks that the title, abstract, learning objectives, and content tell one story rather than promising one thing and delivering another.
Examples Guldin gives of convincing results: length of stay falling from 4.8 to 4.4 days, a process saving clinicians 20 minutes a day, denials declining by 15%, or $2 million in savings with an explanation of where the money came from.
The earlier post lays out the review criteria; the later one builds directly on it ("In my post last week") and turns the same standard into a step-by-step narrative structure, starting from the problem, moving through processes, governance, and team changes, then ending at results.
Don't let a provider-vendor case study become a product pitch
Both HIMSS posts return to submissions that pair a health system with a vendor.
Read more
Guldin says the vendor need not disappear and the technology matters, but the product should not be the story.
The audience should hear about the healthcare problem, the decisions made, what changed, the results, and what they can take back to their own organization.
HIMSS is explicit about commercial bias.
Guldin adds a practical reason: reviewers do not need to hear how good a platform is, only why the organization chose that approach, how it was implemented, what happened, and whether the lessons travel.
Guldin draws a distinction between a presentation about a health IT product and one about what it actually takes to make health IT work.
Guldin says some of the most useful proposals they have reviewed explain what went wrong.
Read more
Healthcare technology implementations are rarely as clean as the final case study makes them look.
Guldin wants concrete answers: Where did the team underestimate the difficulty?
What did clinicians push back on?
Which metric did not move?
What had to change halfway through?
The final test is transferability: whether someone else can use what was learned as a governance model, measurement approach, process, decision framework, or simply three things the team would do differently if starting over.
Questions Guldin says to ask after the results: What was harder than expected?
What didn't work?
What changed?
What would another health system need to know before trying the same thing?
Healthcare market change comes through structures, not one business model
Away from proposal mechanics, Guldin covers the convergence of nonprofit health systems, private equity investors, and for-profit operators.
Read more
They summarize a Private Equity Stakeholder Project report on joint ventures between private equity-backed companies and nonprofit health systems and explain why both sides participate: health systems under financial and operational pressure gain capital, expertise, and infrastructure without carrying the full cost and risk, while private equity firms gain access to established networks, brands, and patient populations.
Guldin raises questions about transparency in complex ownership structures, who controls strategic and operational decisions, how incentives are aligned, and whether regulatory oversight has kept pace.
Their conclusion: transformation happens through acquisitions, partnerships, affiliations, outsourcing, and joint ventures, not through any single model.
Figures Guldin cites from the report: more than 500 healthcare facilities operating under these arrangements across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation, behavioral health, hospice, home health, and urgent care, and 21.4% of private equity-owned hospitals reportedly operating through joint ventures with nonprofit health systems. Ask for the underlying report if independent verification matters.
This is the only post in this lane. Ask whether market-structure commentary is a continuing interest or a one-off.
Guldin promotes conference speaking as a way to spread practical solutions.
Read more
Announcing the call for presentations for the 2026 NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference in Atlantic City, they invite people who have improved patient care, streamlined operations, reduced clinician burden, or used technology in a meaningful way to submit.
They single out sessions that go beyond theory to show measurable outcomes, lessons learned, and practical approaches others can adapt.
The invitation spans health systems, payers, government agencies, startups, consulting firms, and technology companies, matching the cross-sector audience Guldin writes for elsewhere.
The conference's stated theme, "From Burnout to Breakthrough: Rebalancing People, Process, and Technology," and the submission deadline in the post: July 31, 2026.
Start here to understand what Guldin looks for when reviewing HIMSS proposals.
Read more
The post answers: what separates an evidence-based healthcare IT case study from a product presentation?
Guldin writes that they have reviewed proposals for the HIMSS Global Health Conference for several years, including HIMSS27 proposals.
The strongest proposals are not about the newest technology; they make clear what changed.
A good proposal starts with a specific problem instead of “we implemented AI” or “we built an interoperability platform.”
It then shows results, KPIs, or outcomes: for example, length of stay dropping from 4.8 to 4.4 days, a workflow saving clinicians 20 minutes a day, denials declining by 15%, or $2 million in savings with an explanation of where the money came from.
They also check whether the title, abstract, learning objectives, and actual content tell the same story, and want lessons learned about what was harder than expected.
For provider and vendor submissions, the post warns against letting a case study turn into a product pitch.
The central line is: “Implementation isn’t an outcome.
Impact is.”
For brands planning a campaign
A healthcare IT consultancy could use this post as a checklist for proposal reviews and client coaching: define the problem, show credible before-and-after metrics, align the title and abstract with the content, include lessons learned, and keep the vendor from becoming the story.
Read this after the first HIMSS post to see how Guldin turns proposal criteria into a practical narrative structure.
Read more
It answers: how do you tell an honest implementation story that another health system can actually use?
This follow-up post expands Guldin’s proposal advice into a storytelling method.
They say to start before the technology was implemented: what problem was being solved, whether clinicians were losing time, patients were waiting too long, denials were increasing, money was being lost, or there was a quality or safety issue.
Give enough baseline to understand why change was needed.
Then explain what was actually done, including changes to workflows, governance, and how clinical, operational, and IT teams had to agree.
Sometimes the original approach does not work and the organization has to adjust.
Results should match the original goal: time given back to clinicians, length of stay or throughput, denials or collections, or wait times.
Proposals are more useful when they admit what did not work, such as underestimated difficulty, clinician pushback, a metric that did not move, or a mid-project change.
The final test is whether someone else can use what was learned: a governance model, measurement approach, workflow, decision framework, or three things they would do differently.
In provider and vendor presentations, the vendor does not need to disappear, but the product should not be the story.
For brands planning a campaign
This is directly relevant to a consultancy that wants to improve conference submissions and case studies. It can become a coaching template for baseline, operational change, honest results, and transferable lessons.
This post shows Guldin’s involvement in the healthcare conference community beyond reviewing HIMSS proposals.
Read more
It answers: where and when can someone submit a healthcare IT presentation, and what does the conference theme ask for?
Guldin announces that the Call for Presentations is open for the 2026 NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference, taking place October 13–15 in Atlantic City.
The theme is “From Burnout to Breakthrough: Rebalancing People, Process, and Technology.”
The submission deadline given in the post is July 31, 2026.
Guldin encourages people who have led initiatives that improved patient care, streamlined operations, reduced clinician burden, or used technology in a meaningful way to share their story.
They are especially looking forward to sessions that go beyond theory and show measurable outcomes, lessons learned, and practical approaches others can adapt.
The invitation is open to people from health systems, payers, government agencies, startups, consulting firms, and technology companies.
For brands planning a campaign
A healthcare IT consultancy could use this post to identify a timely submission opportunity for itself or its clients. The emphasis on measurable outcomes and practical lessons also reinforces the proposal advice in the other posts.
This post shows a different side of Guldin’s healthcare focus: business-model and market-structure analysis rather than conference proposal mechanics.
Read more
It answers: what does Guldin notice about how healthcare ownership and partnerships are changing?
Guldin discusses a report from the Private Equity Stakeholder Project on joint ventures between private equity-backed companies and nonprofit health systems.
According to the post, the report identifies more than 500 healthcare facilities operating under these arrangements across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation, behavioral health, hospice, home health, urgent care, and other sectors.
It also says 21.4% of private equity-owned hospitals reportedly operate through joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
They explain why these arrangements are growing: health systems face financial and operational pressure, while joint ventures can provide capital, specialized expertise, infrastructure, and service expansion without taking on the full cost and risk.
For private equity firms and their portfolio companies, partnerships can provide market expansion and access to established health system networks, brands, and patient populations.
They then raise questions about transparency in complex ownership and financial structures, who controls strategic and operational decisions, how financial incentives are aligned, and whether regulatory oversight has kept pace.
The post notes that healthcare market transformation happens through acquisitions, partnerships, affiliations, outsourcing, joint ventures, and other structures that gradually reshape how services are financed and delivered.
For brands planning a campaign
For a campaign about healthcare market strategy, this post shows Guldin’s interest in ownership structures, incentives, and regulatory questions. It is useful for briefing market-analysis work, not for HIMSS proposal coaching.
Guldin has reviewed proposals for the HIMSS Global Health Conference for several years, including submissions for HIMSS27, and describes a recurring pattern.
Read more
The strongest proposals start with a specific problem and a baseline — how long clinicians were waiting, how many denials were piling up, what the quality or safety issue looked like before anything changed.
From there, they show a credible before-and-after: length of stay moving from 4.8 to 4.4 days, a workflow saving clinicians twenty minutes a day, denials falling 15%, a program saving $2 million with the source of the savings explained.
Guldin notes that HIMSS explicitly asks reviewers to look for completed results, KPIs, or outcomes, and that the numbers matter less than being believable and tied to the problem the organization started with.
They also check that the title, abstract, learning objectives, and actual content tell one story rather than promising one thing and delivering another.
Guldin works backward from the problem: establish what was happening before the intervention, describe what was actually done, then attach results to the original metric. They treat the technology as one step in that chain, not the subject of it.
For brands planning a campaign
This is the clearest advisory lane in Guldin's posts.
A healthcare IT consultancy, a HIMSS exhibitor with provider customers, or a health system preparing submissions could work with them to pressure-test proposals for alignment among the baseline, metric, and narrative before the deadline.
Specific review criteria and examples of weak and strong proposals could anchor a workshop or written guide.
Keeping provider-vendor case studies out of pitch territory
Both HIMSS posts return to the same risk in submissions that pair a health system with a vendor.
Read more
Guldin says the vendor does not need to disappear and the technology matters, but the product should not be the story.
They want the healthcare problem, the decisions made, what changed, the results, and something the audience can take back to their own organization.
HIMSS is fairly explicit about commercial bias, and Guldin adds a practical reason: reviewers do not need to hear how good a platform is, only what problem the organization faced, why it chose that approach, how it implemented it, what happened, and whether the lessons travel.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for vendor marketing teams whose case studies keep drifting into product features. Guldin could advise on restructuring an existing case study around the provider's problem and results, or review a pipeline of submissions for commercial-bias risk before they go out under a health system's name.
Lessons learned and failures as the most useful content
Guldin argues that some of the most useful proposals they have reviewed are willing to say what did not work.
Read more
The questions they want answered are concrete: where did the team underestimate the difficulty, what did clinicians push back on, which metric failed to move, and what had to change halfway through.
They describe healthcare technology implementations as rarely as clean as the final case study makes them look and say they would rather hear the real version.
The closing test is transferability — whether what was learned can be reused as a governance model, a measurement approach, a workflow, a decision framework, or simply three things the team would do differently starting over.
For brands planning a campaign
This gives a consultancy a second, more differentiated offer: a failure-and-lessons review rather than a polish pass. Content on how to write about what went wrong without undermining the result would stand out from the usual submission-tips material.
Private equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems
A separate post covers a Private Equity Stakeholder Project report on joint ventures between private equity-backed companies and nonprofit health systems.
Read more
Guldin cites the report's finding of more than 500 healthcare facilities operating under these arrangements across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation, behavioral health, hospice, home health, and urgent care, and the figure that 21.4% of private equity-owned hospitals reportedly operate through joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
They explain the market logic on both sides — health systems under financial and operational pressure gaining capital, expertise, and infrastructure without carrying the full cost and risk; private equity firms gaining access to established networks, brands, and patient populations.
The questions they raise concern transparency of ownership structures, who controls strategic and operational decisions, how incentives are aligned, and whether regulatory oversight has kept pace.
Their conclusion is that the boundaries between nonprofit health systems, private equity investors, and for-profit operators are blurring, and that market transformation happens through acquisitions, partnerships, affiliations, outsourcing, and joint ventures rather than any single model.
This post summarizes a third-party report and points readers to it in the comments; the report itself and the comment thread are not included here, so the underlying figures are reported as Guldin presents them rather than independently confirmed. It is the only post in this lane, so no pattern of market-structure coverage across time can be established from the posts here.
For brands planning a campaign
Shows a market-analysis lane distinct from the proposal-craft work. A consultancy or investor-audience publication could commission commentary on healthcare ownership structures and what they mean for operators, with the caveat that this rests on a single post.
Promoting conference speaking and calls for presentations
One post encourages healthcare professionals to submit presentations for the 2026 NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference, held October 13–15 in Atlantic City, under the theme "From Burnout to Breakthrough: Rebalancing People, Process, and Technology," with a July 31, 2026 submission deadline.
Read more
Guldin frames the value of conferences around hearing firsthand how organizations solve real problems, and singles out sessions that go beyond theory to show measurable outcomes, lessons learned, and practical approaches others can adapt. The invitation is aimed at health systems, payers, government agencies, startups, consulting firms, and technology companies.
For brands planning a campaign
Guldin uses their platform to drive submissions and attendance rather than sell a product. A conference organizer, healthcare association, or vendor sponsoring an event could work with them on call-for-presentations content or on framing why a specific session belongs on the agenda, anchored to the measurable-outcomes standard they apply elsewhere.
Guldin says they have reviewed conference proposals for HIMSS over several years.
Read more
A separate post promotes the NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference call for presentations, and another cites a Private Equity Stakeholder Project report on private equity and nonprofit health system joint ventures. Ask about sponsorship or client relationships before booking.
HIMSS
Affiliate
Guldin says they have reviewed proposals for the HIMSS Global Health Conference & Exhibition for several years, including proposals for HIMSS27.
Read more
They look for a specific problem and baseline, completed results and KPIs, lessons learned, and a story that does not substitute a product pitch for substance. Ask whether the reviewer role is paid or contractual.
Promotes the open Call for Presentations for the 2026 NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference, October 13-15 in Atlantic City, on the theme "From Burnout to Breakthrough: Rebalancing People, Process, and Technology," with a July 31, 2026 submission deadline.
Read more
Encourages people from health systems, payers, government agencies, startups, consulting firms, and technology companies to submit.
Discusses a new Private Equity Stakeholder Project report on joint ventures between private equity-backed companies and nonprofit health systems.
Read more
The report finds that 21.4% of private equity-owned hospitals reportedly operate through such joint ventures; the post points readers to the report in the comments.
Matthew Guldin's posts are best explored by subject.
Read more
Start with the two on HIMSS conference proposals, where they explain what makes a health IT submission worth reviewing: a specific problem and baseline, credible before-and-after results tied to that problem, and a story that doesn't slide into a product pitch.
The same standard applies to conference programming, with an invitation to practitioners to present measurable work.
One post takes a different direction, examining private equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
Readers following ownership and consolidation should treat it as a separate thread, not a continuing series.
The tag groups below sort the work by subject, format, and audience; the three creators listed alongside offer different angles on the same territory.
French writes long-form LinkedIn posts about healthcare IT and patient safety in the context of HIMSS, arguing that technology matters only when it changes something on the floor.
Read more
One post traces nuisance and deceptive calls at nursing stations to HCAHPS scores and CMS reimbursement. Guldin applies a similar instinct when asking what actually changed after an implementation.
French writes from a vendor's seat, making the case for one product category: voice security.
That provider-vendor framing is what Guldin looks for when reviewing submissions.
French focuses on cybersecurity and clinical disruption; Guldin focuses on proposal criteria and market structure.
Adil reaches the same conclusion as Guldin about pilots and deployments from a different direction.
Read more
Writing about ambient voice technology in NHS England, Adil argues that an implementation shows only that a supplier got access to a trust—not whether clinicians still use it, whether it reduced documentation time, or whether it improved flow.
That echoes Guldin's point that implementation is not an outcome.
Both write structured, list-heavy LinkedIn analysis of health tech markets.
Adil works in the UK NHS market, offering health tech suppliers commercial go-to-market advice on retention and customer trust. Guldin works from US conference proposal review and nonprofit health system ownership structures.
John C. writes long-form LinkedIn posts for healthcare technology leaders, including an argument that current cybersecurity knowledge is now table stakes for a healthcare CIO and a case for board service as leadership development.
Read more
The format and readership overlap with Guldin's: considered, list-based posts aimed at people running healthcare technology.
The posts center on executive career development and leadership, including personal lessons from board work and continuing education. Guldin focuses on how to judge and present evidence in health IT, with proposal review and market structure as the subject matter rather than leadership advice.
For a campaign aimed at the HIMSS-focused consultancy’s target market, treat Matthew Guldin as a narrow-reach, topic-aligned placement rather than a broad awareness buy.
Read more
The only published audience figure is the LinkedIn profile snapshot: 6,346 followers as of 8 October 2026.
Demographics, engagement counts, and per-post performance data are not published, so the posts do not verify the following’s industry, job function, seniority, employer type, or geography.
The four selected LinkedIn posts, published 10 July to 31 August 2026, address people who run and review healthcare technology programmes: health-system operations, clinical and IT teams, vendors, and conference proposal reviewers.
Three focus on conference submissions and case-study evidence—HIMSS proposal review twice and a state HIMSS chapter call for presentations—and one examines private equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
That overlap with the consultancy’s target market is the strongest audience argument: the people it wants to reach plausibly include the people these posts address.
A following of this size supports niche targeting and authority transfer, not broad reach.
The right fit depends on the deliverable.
For a post or endorsement, ask whether the following includes proposal writers and reviewers at health systems, payers, and vendors.
For a proposal workshop, reviewed case study, or co-authored piece that draws on their review perspective, audience size matters less.
Ask for audience survey results or LinkedIn follower demographics by industry, seniority, and geography, plus impressions, reactions, and comments for the last 10–15 posts of comparable topic, depth, and format.
The four posts are selected examples, not a complete posting history, so cadence and engagement rates cannot be judged from them.
Matthew Guldin's posts do not describe a sponsorship or partnership offering.
Read more
The four posts are commentary, not commercial terms.
Two discuss healthcare partnership structures: joint ventures between private equity-backed companies and nonprofit health systems, and provider-vendor conference presentations.
The other two cover HIMSS conference proposal reviews and a regional HIMSS call for presentations, inviting healthcare organizations to submit speaking proposals—not sponsors to buy placement.
Guldin publishes no formats, deliverables or pricing in these posts.
Ask directly what they offer; the posts provide no inquiry channel for commercial partnerships.
Strong fit for a healthcare IT consultancy seeking to sharpen its HIMSS submissions and case studies.
Read more
A healthcare IT consultancy that wants to sharpen its HIMSS submissions and its case studies is asking for the work Guldin already describes doing.
Two of the four posts here are devoted to how Guldin reads HIMSS Global Health Conference proposals, including submissions for HIMSS27, and both turn on the same criteria: open with a specific problem and a baseline, show completed results tied back to that problem, keep the title, abstract, learning objectives, and content telling one story, include what went wrong, and stop a provider-vendor case study from becoming a product pitch.
That is ready-made working material — a review checklist, a vocabulary for weak versus strong submissions, and the line "Implementation isn't an outcome.
Impact is."
The third post, encouraging submissions for the 2026 NJDVHIMSS Annual Conference under the theme "From Burnout to Breakthrough: Rebalancing People, Process, and Technology," shows Guldin working inside the conference community rather than commenting on it from outside, and applying the same measurable-outcomes standard to the sessions they want to see.
The narrow audience is an advantage for a consultancy seeking to sharpen its HIMSS submissions and case studies rather than a limitation: the people a HIMSS-focused consultancy wants to reach are the proposal writers and reviewers these posts address, and the value being bought is borrowed review judgement, not reach.
The posts here do not show an advisory service, workshop format, coaching offer, rate card, or inquiry channel, so a buyer should establish scope, deliverables, and terms directly instead of assuming a published package exists.
The four posts are also short-form commentary; no workshop recording, teaching material, or long-form writing is available here to judge how the review perspective holds up in a live setting.
When to choose a specialist
Reject for a reach-led brand-awareness campaign.
Read more
Consider a substantially different campaign: a consumer health or wellness brand, or a medical device marketer, seeking sponsored content to build broad patient awareness around a product launch.
The posts don't support it.
The only measured audience figure is 6,346 LinkedIn followers.
Without demographics, engagement counts, or per-post performance data, a buyer can't assess the size or composition of the reach; ask for those figures before considering an awareness campaign.
The posts address a professional healthcare operations audience—health-system, payer, and vendor people who write, review, and run technology programmes—and three of the four deal with conference proposal mechanics.
There's no natural bridge from that material to a patient-facing product message; forcing one would either produce off-topic content under Guldin's name or require a commercial arrangement the posts don't describe.
An investor-audience or market-structure commission on private equity partnerships in healthcare may look plausible by topic, but it rests on a single post summarising a third-party Private Equity Stakeholder Project report.
The report itself and the comment thread aren't available for review.
One secondhand summary is too thin a base for paid market commentary, and the posts don't establish a pattern of coverage over time.
A worked campaign example
Campaign angle for a consultancy seeking to sharpen its HIMSS submissions and case studies: a proposal review clinic built around Guldin's criteria, sold as a pre-submission service rather than a content sponsorship.
Frame it as “review before you submit.”
Four working pieces.
First, a co-authored written framework that turns the criteria into a checklist clients can use without Guldin: what problem existed and what the baseline looked like; what changed in day-to-day processes and governance, and how clinical, operational, and IT teams agreed; which results moved and by how much, tied to the original metric; where the team underestimated difficulty or a metric failed to move; and what another organisation could reuse as a governance model, measurement approach, or decision framework.
Publish it on the consultancy's site with Guldin credited as co-author.
Second, a live review session for the consultancy's clients, with Guldin working through two or three anonymised draft proposals against that checklist: does each start with a specific problem, are the numbers credible and connected to it, do the title and abstract match the content, does the proposal admit what didn't work, and has the vendor become the story?
Record the session for reuse with later client cohorts.
Third, a vendor-facing teardown that takes a case study that drifted into product features and rebuilds it around the provider's problem, decisions, results, and transferable lessons.
Use both the commercial-bias rule HIMSS applies and Guldin's practical version: the vendor doesn't need to disappear, but the product shouldn't be the story.
Fourth, distribute through Guldin's LinkedIn audience and the consultancy's newsletter and client list, timed to the conference submission cycle; check the specific deadlines Guldin names against current calls before scheduling.
Judge engagement by whether clients submit revised proposals and whether reviewers and clients report that the material changed a decision, not by impressions; there's no performance data to set a benchmark.
The posts don't describe an offer from Guldin, so negotiate directly and don't present this as a published sponsorship format or price it from a public rate card.
Choose French when the consultancy's work is on the vendor side of a provider-vendor story, rather than reviewing somebody else's abstract.
Read more
In two posts, they make the move they recommend: open with the clinician — nurses pulled off bedside care by nuisance calls — then translate that into measures a hospital executive owns, naming HCAHPS quietness and staff responsiveness and the share of value-based purchasing payments at risk, before introducing the product. That ordering, and the judgment about how far down a post a brand name can sit, are directly useful when a consultancy client is a supplier that keeps writing its case study as a product pitch.
The posts promote one named employer — Mutare's voice traffic filter and its HIMSS26 booth — and show how a vendor shapes a problem-first narrative, not how a reviewer weighs a submission.
Neither shows review criteria, a scored review, or a before-and-after of a rewritten abstract.
A consultancy hiring French for a campaign aimed at hospital executives gets a worked example of a well-ordered vendor narrative, but not the reviewer's perspective they bring.
Adil is the closer substitute when a consultancy client faces a commercial rather than editorial problem: a health-tech supplier has secured pilots or framework places but cannot show the technology is used, renewed, or changing care.
Read more
The August 2026 posts extend the line in Guldin's "implementation isn't an outcome" into the market: an implementation count shows a supplier got access to a trust, not that clinicians kept using the technology, documentation time fell, or the contract will scale.
A large footprint can also hide a weakening base when customer success, onboarding, support, or integrations are stretched.
Adil documents a first step a buyer can act on: a free opening conversation described as a candid review of commercial model, customer journey, retention risk, and go-to-market strategy.
The posts focus on NHS and UK ambient AI: trust implementations, EPR integration, information governance, and procurement routes.
Neither addresses conference submissions, abstract or case-study review, or the commercial-bias rule a US conference applies.
The offer is a first conversation, with no scope, deliverable, or review format attached.
Before commissioning a proposal review, ask Adil to specify the scope, deliverable, and review format.
Consider John C. when the consultancy's objective shifts from submission quality to how health-system technology leaders build careers and boards — for programming aimed at CIOs or content for an executive-audience brief.
Read more
The posts address that audience on its own terms: what a board actually asks about strategy, risk, financial viability, and the leadership pipeline; why a nonprofit or advisory board seat is worth taking before the first corporate board; and why a CIO needs current cyber-risk knowledge across connected medical devices, identity and access, Zero Trust, ransomware resilience, incident recovery, and AI-enabled threats that keep that knowledge from staying current. For a leadership-development or executive-education campaign, this vocabulary sits closer to the buying audience than a conference proposal checklist does.
The two posts offer first-person reflections on governance and taking a university cyber-risk course, rather than writing, reviewing, or evidencing a conference submission or case study.
A consultancy that needs submission-review judgment should ask for examples of that work and a clear advisory deliverable before commissioning.
The sample is two posts on one channel, with no audience or engagement data.
Four full LinkedIn posts discuss HIMSS proposal review, health IT implementation stories, a regional conference call for presentations, and private equity joint ventures with nonprofit health systems.
The posts here have no publication dates.
The account snapshot is dated October 8, 2026.
The posts do not establish whether Guldin has a signature book, show, business, or earlier body of work; that remains an open name-search research gap.
