Whole programmes, single courses, and everything in between — for complex, regulated, high-consequence work, the kind where people have to be able to do something differently afterwards and somebody has to be able to prove they can. Programme architecture, curriculum mapping, course build, media production and LMS delivery, from one team. Everything below is a working sample. Click any of it.
Not screenshots — the actual packages, running. Each one opens here on the page.
Not a diagram of a course: the course itself, in the shell a learner sees. Three of its seven modules are open here, and inside them nothing is mocked up — the video lessons play, the textbook and workbook open, and every assignment carries points and an honest hours budget. Walk it the way a student would.
On the subject matter. These samples are healthcare, because that is where this practice has built most of its library. The architecture, the assessment design and the production pipeline are subject-agnostic — the same shells have been built against professional standards, certification blueprints and internal role frameworks. If your content is not clinical, none of the below changes.
Not the course — the lesson. Tagging at that grain is the difference between a library you can report on and a pile of content you hope is covering the right things.
Most content libraries are tagged by topic, which tells you what a thing is about. We tag by competency, at the sub-competency level, which tells you what someone can do after it. That one change is what makes three questions answerable:
The framework is yours, not ours. A national academic set, a certification blueprint, a regulator's requirements, or your own role and capability model — the tagging layer takes any of them, and a piece of content can carry more than one at a time.
The format follows the learning. Most engagements mix two or three of these.
Multi-course curricula designed as one system: what each course is for, what it is allowed to assume, where competencies are introduced, reinforced and assessed, and how a learner actually gets from admission to the other end.
From a one-hour module to a sixteen-week course with its own textbook. Lessons, video, assessment, interactive widgets, downloadable tools — and the architecture underneath that decides what belongs where.
Short, single-idea units designed for the time people actually have — minutes, on a phone, between other things. Stacked into a tracked, credit-bearing sequence when it needs to be.
Shot with real practitioners, cut into an episode, then built into a module with objectives, a chapter spine and evidence at each turn. People remember a person; the citations make it defensible.
You already own recordings — webinars, interviews, conference sessions, a podcast back catalogue. We wrap them into tracked modules instead of letting them sit as a media library nobody is accountable for.
Scripted, generated and versioned presenter video. When the standard changes you re-render the affected lesson instead of re-booking a studio — which is the only way a large library stays current.
The scaffolding that sits beside the course: templates, worked examples, checklists, sentence banks, worksheets. Usually the part learners actually keep open — and the part most course builds leave out.
The same five moves whether it is one card or a whole programme. The subject changes and the framework changes; the discipline does not.
Not "what should we cover" but "what can people not do yet, and how do we know". The gap is evidenced — from your incident data, audit findings, survey results, support tickets, whatever you already have — before a single objective gets written. Sometimes this step ends with us telling you the problem is not a training problem.
One measurable statement of what someone will do differently. Everything downstream — the lessons, the assessment, the evaluation — is built to serve that statement, and anything that does not serve it gets cut, however interesting it is.
Every objective is tagged to a competency, at the sub-competency level, in whatever framework your work is accountable to — a professional standard, a certification blueprint, a regulatory requirement, an internal role or capability model. Tagging at that grain is what makes coverage reportable: which capabilities your people are strong in, which ones nobody has touched all year, and where the next build should go.
Content is verified against primary sources, not against a summary of one. References sit in the build file, dated and reviewable, so material has a defensible shelf life and a scheduled review rather than an indefinite one.
The instrument asks whether the outcome was met, what the learner will change, and what will get in the way. Those answers are structured data — so evaluation feeds your next needs assessment instead of producing a star rating nobody acts on.
Built to land in the system you already run, not to sell you a new one.
We have shipped course builds into Canvas, Blackboard and commercial LMS platforms, and authored to the open standards the rest accept. We work to your naming conventions, your module structure and your accessibility requirements rather than imposing ours.
Where a build has to carry continuing-education credit, we produce the documentation the accrediting body asks for as part of the build rather than reconstructing it afterwards.
Take the whole thing, or come in at the stage where you are stuck.
Before anything gets built: the gap analysis, the outcome set, the competency map, the sequence — across a single course or an entire programme.
Full production from outline to packaged course, media included.
An existing course that is not landing, or a library that has gone stale.
Getting it in front of people, and knowing whether it worked.
That is the whole first conversation. Bring the gap — an audit finding, an incident trend, a survey result, a course that is not landing — and we will tell you honestly whether learning is the right instrument and what it would take to build it.
or write to elizabeth@hivenurse.com and ashley@hivenurse.com
