LearnGrokNothing here is clinical advice, and nothing here should touch identifiable patient information.
Use this workflow to turn a referral form, relevant correspondence and stated service needs into one consistent intake summary. It is for administrative and operational teams preparing a record for clinician or care coordinator review before first contact.
Do not use identifiable patient information in the chat. This workflow prepares an administrative draft, not clinical advice, triage or a decision about care.
Key point
Keep the reviewer in charge
Produce a source-linked administrative summary. A clinician or authorised care coordinator must check it before it is added to a patient record or used to contact anyone.
1. Set up a de-identified work pack
Create a temporary working document with a non-identifying case reference, such as REF-024. Remove or replace all direct identifiers before pasting material into the model:
- Name, date of birth, address, telephone number and email address
- Patient, family member and staff names
- Record numbers, referral numbers, appointment references and document metadata
- Exact dates where they could identify the person. Use relative timing such as
earlier this yearonly if it remains useful - Free-text details that identify the person through a rare job, location or event
Keep the original referral records only in your approved clinical or organisational system. Work from the de-identified copy.
Watch out
De-identification is more than removing a name
A combination of a rare condition, a small location, a precise date and a family detail may still identify someone. Generalise or omit it from the work pack.
Gather the records in a fixed order:
- Referral form or referral message.
- Prior correspondence relevant to the referral.
- The stated needs, preferences and contact constraints recorded by the referrer or person.
- Your local service intake requirements, if you have an approved non-confidential template.
Label each source before you paste it. For example, use Source A: referral form, Source B: referrer letter and Source C: prior service correspondence. This lets the reviewer trace each statement later.
2. Use a fixed summary structure
Do not ask for an open-ended narrative. Give the model headings and tell it what it must not infer. The aim is a short document that makes gaps and conflicts visible.
Use this prompt with your de-identified work pack:
Create an administrative intake summary for review before first contact.
Use only the supplied sources. Do not diagnose, prioritise, assess urgency, recommend treatment, or infer facts that are not stated. Do not include identifiable information.
Use these headings:
1. Case reference
2. Referral source and date received, if supplied
3. Reason for referral, using the referrer's wording where possible
4. Stated needs and requested support
5. Relevant background stated in the sources
6. Previous contact or service involvement stated in the sources
7. Communication, access and contact preferences stated in the sources
8. Information conflicts or missing information
9. Administrative actions for reviewer consideration
10. Source notes, showing Source A, B or C for each material point
Write concise bullets. Mark unprovided information as 'Not stated'. Separate facts from requests. If sources conflict, quote or describe both versions without deciding which is correct.
Sources:
[paste labelled, de-identified sources]
The final heading matters. It is not a clinical plan. Suitable actions include confirm preferred contact route, ask referrer to provide missing attachment or check whether consent status is recorded in the approved system. Do not ask the model to decide whether a person needs urgent care, a particular service or a clinical intervention.
For current product behaviour, supported features and handling requirements, check the xAI documentation overview. These details can be version-dependent.
3. Check the draft against the records
Read the source documents alongside the draft. Do this before saving, sharing or placing anything in a case-management system.
Check each section in this order:
- Confirm the reason for referral matches the referral form. Preserve uncertainty such as
possible,reported,queryorseeking information. - Check that stated needs are attributed correctly. A need reported by a referrer is not necessarily confirmed by the person.
- Compare prior correspondence. Make sure the draft does not turn an attempted contact, an unconfirmed statement or a historic note into a current fact.
- Confirm contact preferences are copied only where they are clearly stated and are needed for the reviewer.
- Inspect
Not statedand conflict entries. They should expose missing material rather than fill it with plausible wording. - Search the draft for identifiers, including names hidden in quoted text or document titles.
Check
A usable summary is traceable
You should be able to point from every material statement in the summary to a labelled source. If you cannot, delete it, label it as unclear, or return to the records.
Use this table to correct common failures.
| If you see this | Treat it as | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A confident statement absent from every source | An unsupported inference | Delete it and add Not stated if the field is required |
| Two sources give different details | A record conflict | Show both with source labels. Ask the reviewer to resolve it |
| A clinical label or urgency statement | Beyond the administrative brief | Remove it. State only the wording used in the source, if relevant |
| A contact detail or identifying quote | A privacy failure | Remove it from the draft and review the work pack |
4. Prepare the reviewer handover
Put the checked summary into your approved internal format. Keep the source labels until the reviewer has completed their check. Add a short handover note that tells them what needs attention, rather than interpreting the record for them.
For example:
Reviewer handover: Please verify the reason for referral against Source A. Source B and Source C differ on previous service contact. Preferred contact route is not stated in the supplied records.
Record who prepared the summary, the date of preparation and the case reference in the approved system. Follow your organisation's retention, access and audit procedures. Do not treat the generated draft as the authoritative record.
Note
Keep missing information visible
A clean-looking summary can conceal a weak referral. Not stated is useful because it tells the reviewer what may need confirming before contact.
5. When the workflow does not work
Stop and return to the original records if the output contains identifiers, unsupported facts, clinical recommendations or a missing source label. Do not repair a heavily contaminated draft by editing around it. Create a fresh de-identified work pack and run the prompt again.
If the referral is incomplete, do not use the model to guess the missing details. Mark the field as Not stated and use your local process to request clarification from the referrer or route the case to the authorised reviewer. If the records suggest an immediate operational concern, follow your organisation's escalation procedure rather than relying on the summary.
