LymeHQ · For clinicians

The history they never manage to tell you in twelve minutes

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.

01 · Access

Two things, both held by the patient

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

A patient adds you to their care team, 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 Either one withdrawn ends your access on your next page load, with no cached screen still showing their record.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.

02 · 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 window either side of it, how much of that window was actually recorded, and the longest gap on each side.
  • Six symptom measures before and after that date, with the change and a plain verdict — lower after, higher after, about the same, or not enough data.
  • An explicit flag when something else started in the same window, and a note when a treatment stopped inside it.

Whether the numbers say anything at all is decided before they are shown. If the window around a start date is too thinly recorded, the verdict is “not enough data” — a row count rather than a hedge, and the same arithmetic the patient sees on their own screen. There is one implementation of it, so your view and theirs cannot disagree.

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.

03 · 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 checked a licence and recorded that they did, in a trail that names them and cannot be edited afterwards.

That is now how it works, with one piece still missing. Clinicians in the demo directory have been reviewed and carry a badge; the review screen exists and records who decided. What does not exist is the screen a clinician would use to submit their own evidence — so today the evidence is entered for them, which is fine for a demo and is not how it will work for anyone else. How verification is designed sets out what a badge would be evidence of, and is equally clear about what it would not tell anyone.

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.

Where to go next