I provide applied advisory support grounded in biomedical science and East Asian medical insight, with a focus on how research, clinical practice, and organizational systems actually intersect.
This work is designed for teams who need practical clarity, especially where gaps between evidence, training, and care delivery are creating confusion or risk.
I provide independent advisory support that strengthens decision-making in contexts where evidence is incomplete, contested, or difficult to apply directly.
This support typically includes:
Interpreting and synthesizing research for applied decision-making
Clarifying assumptions, scope boundaries, and areas of uncertainty
Supporting clinical, programmatic, or product design decisions
Identifying gaps, misalignments, or downstream risks before implementation
Organizations use this support to:
Reduce decision risk and rework
Improve coherence across research, practice, and strategy
Make defensible choices in complex or interdisciplinary contexts
Move forward with greater clarity and confidence
I work with organizations and teams who are already aware that gaps exist between evidence, decision-making, and real-world outcomes, and who want structured, research-informed guidance to address those gaps.
Women’s health, femtech, and health technology companies
Research teams and translational or interdisciplinary groups
Clinical organizations and integrative health practices
Nonprofit, public health, and policy-adjacent initiatives
Founders and leadership teams working across biomedical and integrative frameworks
I am most helpful when teams are facing uncertainty, conflicting inputs, or pressure to move forward without sufficient clarity.
Interpretation of clinical and translational research to support product, program, and policy decisions
Advisory support for women’s health products and services operating across biomedical and integrative frameworks
Clarifying claims, scope, and intended use in patient-facing and clinician-facing offerings
Supporting teams as they move from concept or evidence review into real-world implementation
Identifying where design or messaging choices may introduce confusion, risk, or misalignment
East–West translational perspectives applied to research interpretation and care design
Chinese herbal medicine foundations as they relate to modern clinical contexts
Reviewing evidence with attention to biological plausibility, limitations, and appropriate use
Supporting interdisciplinary teams navigating mixed medical paradigms
Helping organizations avoid overreach when integrating traditional or complementary approaches
Identifying ethical and safety risks embedded in clinical workflows, education, or product design
Clarifying scope of practice and role boundaries within integrative or interdisciplinary teams
Reviewing materials and programs for unintended harm or misinterpretation
Supporting decision-making in complex or uncertain clinical or organizational contexts
Advising on patient communication and expectation management
Engagements are structured to support focused, applied decision-making. Formats are selected based on the nature of the question, the materials involved, and the timeline for decisions.
Live conversations focused on clarifying a specific question, decision, or area of uncertainty. Consultations may be exploratory or decision-focused and do not include advance document review unless specified.
Review of selected materials such as research summaries, clinical content, program descriptions, or internal documents. Feedback is provided in written form, with attention to interpretation, scope, assumptions, and real-world use.
Some engagements combine live consultation with targeted document review, depending on the needs of the organization and the complexity of the issue.
Organizations engage at different levels depending on the scope of the issue, the degree of uncertainty involved, and whether support is needed at a single decision point or across an evolving initiative.
Short-term advisory support centered on a defined question or decision. Typically limited in scope and duration.
A bounded engagement involving review and interpretation of selected materials, often with written observations and recommendations. Suitable when decisions depend on a thorough evaluation of evidence, claims, or assumptions.
Longer-term advisory relationships supporting organizations as decisions unfold over time. May involve periodic consultation, iterative review, and ongoing decision support.
A structured advisory deliverable that supports complex judgment where evidence is incomplete, contested, or difficult to apply.
What it includes:
Clarification of the advisory question or decision context
Review and synthesis of relevant evidence or source materials
Identification of assumptions, uncertainties, and risk considerations
Written analysis suitable for internal use
Timeline: Typically one to two weeks
Fee: $3500 minimum. More complex scopes are priced separately.
Advisory only. No clinical recommendations or determinations.
This brief outlines recurring decision-making and safety risk patterns observed across women’s health research, innovation, and care delivery. It is often reviewed prior to an initial consultation to support focused, productive conversations.
Download the Position Brief (PDF)
For organizations considering an advisory engagement, the Engagement Summary outlines scope, process, deliverables, and working boundaries in plain language. It is intended to support informed decision-making before scheduling a consultation.
Download the Engagement Summary (PDF)
$225 · 50 minutes
This initial consultation provides a focused working session to clarify your goals, surface relevant decision-making considerations, and determine whether an advisory engagement is an appropriate fit. We identify the likely scope of work and outline next steps if we choose to move forward.
Required prior to all consulting engagements.
Consulting engagements begin at $3,500. Rates vary based on scope and depth of work.A Systems Review provides a structured, research-informed evaluation of how clinical, operational, and communication patterns influence quality, safety, and decision-making within an organization. The review identifies areas where targeted adjustments can improve alignment, reduce unnecessary risk, and support clearer, more confident judgment.
Each review examines selected workflows, policies, written materials, and communication pathways with attention to scope integrity, evidence use, and structural clarity. The process is fully remote and designed to be non-disruptive to daily operations.
Organizations receive a written set of observations and recommendations grounded in evidence-aware, harm-reduction principles. These findings may inform staff training, workflow refinement, protocol development, or next-step planning within existing organizational structures.
I take on a limited number of advisory engagements at a time to ensure focused attention and continuity of work. Availability varies depending on scope and timing.
To inquire about consulting, please use the Contact page or email:
info@ihsi-institute.org
I respond personally and directly to all consulting inquiries.