When the protocol changed and the notes did not

Clinical pathways are updated centrally. Documentation habits are updated locally, slowly, and unevenly. The gap between the two is invisible until somebody audits it.

The situation

A pathway is revised. The revision is published, circulated and acknowledged. Months later, notes in some areas still reflect the previous version: the old order of investigations, the old thresholds, the old terminology.

Nobody is ignoring the change. The documentation simply follows established practice, and established practice moves more slowly than a published revision.

Why it is hard

Drift is distributed and gradual

It does not appear as a single failure. It appears as a slow divergence that no individual note makes obvious.

The current protocol is itself a document

Comparing practice against protocol means reading both, and the protocol has its own revision history.

Audit by sampling finds the common cases

Sampling a hundred notes finds what is frequent. It systematically misses what is rare, which is often what matters.

How we approach it

Agentix reads the current pathway and the documentation against it, and reports where practice and protocol diverge, with the specific notes and the specific clause of the pathway in each case.

The output is a list of divergences for clinical review, not a compliance score. The judgement about whether a divergence was appropriate stays with the clinician.

What changes

Divergence reported against the current protocol revision
Specific notes cited rather than a sampled percentage
Review across the whole set rather than a sample
Clinical judgement on each divergence stays with the clinician

Is this your problem too?

Bring the version of it you actually have. We will tell you what it would take, including when the answer is that it is not worth doing.

Discuss your use case About Agentix