Digital Trust Adviser — Health Technology Platform

The mandate

The board's persistent question is what trust promise can remain coherent when different ecosystem participants collect, infer and act on the same patient's data. Product expansion has outpaced agreement on which clinical claims, permissions and redress duties the parent platform should own.

Two advisory days each month include a patient-journey review and Trust and Safety Committee attendance. A potential patient-harm or consent issue receives acknowledgement within twelve hours and availability for a committee call within one working day.

The ten-month appointment reaches through publication of the platform trust charter and two quarterly reviews. Renewal for two months is at the committee chair's discretion; the adviser has no line authority, clinical responsibility, data-controller designation or executive power.

Three concurrent roles are permissible only outside directly competing care platforms. Hospital, insurer, pharmacy, diagnostics, health-data or vendor interests touching the ecosystem must be disclosed and may require withdrawal from a discussion.

Why the board wants this voice

Legal advice addresses compliance, and clinicians review individual care content, but neither provides an integrated platform-trust view. Directors need challenge informed by real digital-health failures. The adviser will help them see how seemingly separate product choices compound at patient level.

What you will own

• Test whether the proposed consent journeys support genuine comprehension across care, commerce and research uses.
• Challenge clinical and wellness claims whose evidence does not match their prominence in the product.
• Press the board on accountability when partner advice, fulfilment or records cause patient harm.
• Shape principles for identity matching, proxy access, correction and emergency use.
• Examine incentives that could bias discovery, referrals or care recommendations.
• Guide the committee's selection of patient-trust and redress outcome measures.
• Advise when an ecosystem feature should pause despite commercial demand.

Candidate qualifications

• 18–22 years in digital health, clinical governance, privacy or regulated platform leadership.
• Direct accountability for trust or patient-safety design in a multi-party health ecosystem.
• Experience presenting consent, harm and accountability trade-offs to a board committee.
• Working knowledge of health-data interoperability, patient identity, clinical evidence and grievance operations.
• Evidence of stopping or redesigning a digital-care feature because the risk exceeded its benefit.
• Independence from major ecosystem participants likely to receive privileged access.

Non-negotiables

• Twelve-hour acknowledgement of a documented potential patient-harm issue.
• Two Bengaluru days monthly and every scheduled Trust and Safety Committee meeting.
• Full disclosure of healthcare, insurer, pharmacy, diagnostic and data-vendor relationships.
• No clinical direction, operational intervention or public representation under the retainer.

1. 49 words maximum. Which digital-health trust decision did you influence, and what patient evidence caused the product to change?
2. 49 words maximum. What healthcare ecosystem roles, investments or clients would this committee need to consider as conflicts?
3. 49 words maximum. Can you meet a twelve-hour harm-query acknowledgement while protecting two monthly advisory days?