Keep the claim and the evidence together

Keep this file beside the proposals and notes you are comparing. The three tools below are original editorial structures. Print them or copy them privately. The website has no process for submitting a completed care file or publishing a person’s history.

Card A / Claim and check

Use one card per claim. A narrow card is easier to review than a broad statement that the provider has “passed verification.” The check should identify exactly what was matched and where.

• Decision the claim affects:
• Exact claim and named person, program or service:
• Original source and date received:
• Question the evidence needs to answer:
• Appropriate authority or document:
• Source consulted and date:
• Check actually performed:
• Status and scope of the answer:
• Remaining clarification:

For an accreditation inquiry, CARF and Joint Commission provide their own public search routes. A person’s professional license calls for the relevant issuing authority. Record each as a separate check.

Card B / Read the outcome figure

Before comparing a percentage or improvement statement, ask the provider for the definition behind it. The AHRQ guide to measure types distinguishes organizational structure, care process and outcomes. A claim about each category needs its own description.

• Exact figure or improvement statement:
• What is measured and how it is defined:
• Population or group included:
• Period during which care occurred:
• Time when the result was measured:
• Data collection method and source:
• Missing responses or exclusions described:
• Comparison, if one is claimed:
• Information still needed to interpret the figure:

Illustrative reading: a provider reports a satisfaction percentage among survey respondents. Write down that group and the question asked. Do not silently relabel it a recovery rate for everyone who received care. The illustration explains a category distinction; it is not an account of any named provider’s results.

Card C / The revision ledger

A comparison can become misleading when a new answer overwrites the original without explanation. Preserve the previous entry, the replacement and what caused the change. This is especially useful for revised service terms, different staff assignments or updated source records.

• Earlier entry and its source:
• New information and source date:
• Reason the entry changed:
• What the new information establishes:
• What remains outside the check:
• Date the working record was revised:

The ledger should make the update easier to understand, not turn routine changes into allegations. Use factual labels and retain the documents relevant to the decision.

A background reading route

Behavioral Health Wiki’s dictionary can help clarify terminology before you examine a service claim. Then use the provider’s own documents and the responsible primary authority for the actual check.

Take the completed file to the professional conversation it supports. It should reveal the source and scope of each answer, help the person ask a better question, and preserve open matters accurately. It does not require an invented score to be useful.