Written for clinicians · the shared record works today

The history they never manage to tell you in one appointment

What a shared record looks like from your side, and what is deliberately not on it.

A patient-kept record, shared by the patient, in a form you can read quickly — with the arithmetic done and the causal claim deliberately absent. Nothing here rates you, ranks you, or benchmarks you against anyone.

You can use this today

  • Consented patient history in a browser — exactly what the patient shared, for exactly as long as they shared it, and gone on your next page load when either lock closes.WorkingShared with me, scoped to what was granted
  • The same short printed brief the patient sees: figures and dates, no interpretation, computed once so your view and theirs cannot disagree.WorkingPre-visit brief, patient and provider sides
  • A directory where a person read one document about the clinician before a listing appeared, and recorded which one. Each listing says what that check covered and what it did not — and the one piece still missing is named below.WorkingProvider verification and directory
  • What every field in the record means and which code system it belongs to — worth reading before you decide how much of it to trust.WorkingThe element set and codebook
  • Seven steps you can send a patient today: what to record, what to bring you, and what to watch for. No account, and it names no medicine and no amount.WorkingThe tick-bite workflow
  • A QR page opened without a login — the short read of a patient-reported exposure record, which expires.WorkingThe clinician read page
  • What changed since the last visit, rather than the whole record again.WorkingPre-visit delta — what changed since last visit
  • Board-defensible documentation: the reasoning, the consent, the monitoring plan and the guideline version in effect.WorkingThe clinical reasoning record

Not built yet

Designed, blocked upstream, on hold by our own decision, or a screen you can open but not use. The pill on each line is the register’s own word for it.

  • Three plans and what each includes. The screen renders and no payment processor is connected — and a subscription would buy a listing, never a verification.PreviewProvider plan and billing

Every line above names a row in the capability register by its exact title, and the pill is that row’s state — so a capability that moves changes this page in the commit that moves it, rather than the next time somebody remembers.

Access

Two things, both held by the patient

There is no third route, and no way to ask.

A patient shares their record with you, and separately switches sharing on. The database requires both together, in the rule attached to the data itself — not as a check somewhere in the application that could be forgotten by the next feature. Either one withdrawn ends your access on your next page load, with no cached screen still showing their record.

There is nothing on LymeHQ that lets a clinician request access, claim a patient, or be assigned one, and an administrator cannot mint the connection either. Granting is not consenting: the patient does both, or neither happens.

The panel

What is on it

Arithmetic, computed once, in one place.

  • Who has shared with you, with their current treatment stage, recorded diagnoses and coinfections.
  • How many days in the last thirty carry an entry, and when the last one was — a count in a window, never a streak.
  • For each treatment with a start date: the thirty days either side of it, with the days logged, the days marked too unwell to record and the days with no entry counted apart on each side.
  • 6 questions before and after that date, as how many days the patient chose each word — never an average, a difference or a verdict.
  • An explicit flag when something else started in the same window, and a note when a treatment stopped inside it.

A thinly recorded window is shown as exactly that. Each side of a start date says how many days were logged, how many were marked too unwell to record and how many have no entry, and nothing is concluded from the counts.

Not on the panel

The journal

Free-text entries are private by design and are never included. A record someone edits for an audience stops being the record.

Not on the panel

A causal claim

The anchor is labelled a patient-reported start date and the figures are association, never attribution. Nothing generates a sentence saying a treatment caused a change, and no model is called anywhere on this path.

Not on the panel

A recommendation

No individualised medical advice comes from this platform — not from Beacon, not from a badge, not from a table. What the figures mean for one person is your judgement, not ours.

Said precisely

The panel is a deliberate selection of what is useful in a short appointment, not a claim about the limits of what the system could technically return. We would rather state that plainly than describe an editorial choice as a security boundary — the boundary is the two locks above, and the patient holds both.

The directory

Short on purpose, and empty on purpose right now

A long list of unverified names is worse than no list.

Patients arriving here have usually been through several clinicians already. What they need is not more names — it is a shorter list they can trust. So the intent is that nobody appears in a LymeHQ directory until a person has reviewed what was submitted and recorded it, in a trail that names them and cannot be edited afterwards — and each listing says what that check covered and what it did not.

That is now how it works, with one piece still missing. How verification is designed carries the whole account — what a badge would be evidence of, what it would not tell anyone, and the one screen a clinician still cannot use to submit their own evidence, which is why for now that evidence is entered for them.

What LymeHQ is not

Not a telehealth provider, not an employer of clinicians, and not a party to your care. We do not host encounters, prescribe, or order labs, and there is no plan to. The clinician a patient sees carries clinical and legal responsibility for that care. Where a directory eventually matches, it will match on licensure in the state the patient is in, because that is the constraint that actually decides who somebody can see.

The rules that bind us with you

No ratings, no reviews, everA listing will never mean a star rating. There is no rating field in the schema to fill, and that is a decision rather than a gap.Ruled outRatings and reviews of clinicians
Nothing compares you with anyoneNo league table, no percentile, no quiet comparison inside a dashboard. Ruled out in the register rather than left unbuilt.Ruled outBenchmarking clinicians against each other
We document why, never whatNo dose, frequency or duration is composed anywhere on this platform. Those decisions, and the systems that record them, stay yours.Ruled outRegimen composition — doses, durations, stop criteria
You see what was grantedA grant is what it says it is. There is no way to request access, claim a patient, or be assigned one — and an administrator cannot mint the connection either.WorkingShared with me, scoped to what was granted
Entry pointHow a listing is checked →The evidence-and-attestation split, what a badge would be evidence of, and what it would not tell anyone.
What your patients seeThe directory as it reads from the other side: who is listed, what was checked before they appeared, and the questions worth asking before booking.The provider directory →
Your seat · claimed, then verifiedA listing is claimed and then checked by a person — the licence and the practice — in a trail that names who decided and cannot be edited afterwards. Verification is what the seat IS; it is not something a subscription buys.Designed, not builtFirst sign-in — one question, once per accountThe screen that asks an account holding more than one seat which to open by default is designed and not built, so there is nothing here to sign in to yet.

Where to go next