Advisory where it is clinical. Required where it is structural.
Two different kinds of check run against every draft, and MedReport keeps them apart on purpose. A missing return date on a certificate is a document problem and it stops the signature. An allergy conflict is a clinical judgement and it never does.
Clinical findings
Medication against recorded allergies. Interactions between items on the same discharge script. Doses that look out of range for the patient on the page. Coding that does not match the diagnosis text.
Every one of these is raised for the treating clinician to look at, and every one can be reviewed and signed past. Even a critical allergy flag stays advisory. The clinician in the room knows things the record does not, and software that could veto a signature would be pretending otherwise.
Document completeness
A medical certificate without a return date. A motivation without the scheme and member number. A discharge summary with no primary diagnosis. A referral letter with no addressee.
These are rules about the document, not about the patient, and they are the reason things come back from schemes and employers. MedReport will not let a document like that be signed, because the person it goes to will reject it anyway and the practice will have lost two weeks finding out.
If you are ever unsure which kind of check you are looking at, the interface tells you. Advisory findings appear amber and can be reviewed. Required fields appear inline in the document, and the sign button stays disabled until they are filled.
One banner,not a scatter of pop-ups.
When there are findings, you see a single summary above the document. You open it, you read what was found and where it came from, and you deal with it. The document you are editing is not interrupted by dialogs.
Three advisory, one required. Only the required one holds up the signature.
- Amoxicillin against recorded penicillin allergyMedication on discharge, line 1Advisory
- Warfarin and clarithromycin on the same scriptMedication on discharge, lines 2 and 4Advisory
- Proposed I21.9 does not match the diagnosis textPrimary diagnosisAdvisory
- Follow-up date is emptyDischarge planRequired
| Finding | Where it came from | Kind |
|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin against recorded penicillin allergy | Medication on discharge, line 1 | Advisory |
| Warfarin and clarithromycin on the same script | Medication on discharge, lines 2 and 4 | Advisory |
| Proposed I21.9 does not match the diagnosis text | Primary diagnosis | Advisory |
| Follow-up date is empty | Discharge plan | Required |
Proposed codes you accept,edit or reject.
Codes are proposed against the South African code sets, with the line of the document each one came from. Nothing is applied silently. If a proposed code is wrong, reject it, and the rejection is part of what gets recorded.
SA code sets
PMB context
Traceable
On generation,and again whenever you ask.
Checks run when the draft is first produced. If you edit the document you can re-run them. If you sign after making changes, MedReport offers a re-check rather than forcing one, because a doctor who has read the document does not need a machine to insist.
Whichever flags were open and which you reviewed becomes part of the seal on the signed document. You do not file anything, and two years later it is there.
The limit, stated plainly
MedReport is documentation software.
It drafts and it checks. It does not diagnose, it does not prescribe, and it does not make clinical decisions about a patient. The checks are decision support for a clinician to review, and they are not a substitute for the sources and judgement you already use.
This is not a legal disclaimer bolted to the bottom of a page. It is the design position, and it is why a red flag can never stop you signing.
Bring a script you would want checked.
Run a real discharge with a real medication list on the call and see what is raised, what is enforced, and what is simply left to you.