AttendMeIdentify the document
Confirm the authorised local source and its current version. Check the issuing organisation and review date.
Name the difference
Write the exact point of potential disagreement without implying that the protocol is wrong.
Inspect the comparison
Check source date, region, population and practical context. New research does not automatically supersede local guidance.
Record the review
Keep the sources and unresolved questions visible. Use the institution's process to decide whether a change is appropriate.
A worked workflow example
Use a possible difference as a review question rather than a declaration that a protocol is wrong. Begin with a Fellow protocol item or the original documents. A useful review needs the current local source and external evidence.
Your input
When the Fellow surfaces a possible difference, ask: 'Does this source justify reviewing the cited passage in our current approved protocol?' Record the document title, version and exact passage beside the external paper's identifier. Do not assume that a disagreement exists for any particular topic.
In AttendMe
Open Digital Fellow with eligible plan access. Open the protocol item and select Open protocol when that action is available. If the item lacks a comparison or either source, collect the original material and use a de-identified Chat question to investigate the precise point.
What you inspect
Confirm the local document is current. Inspect the external paper's date, population, setting and outcome. Consider local resources and prior governance decisions. A protocol-version update and disagreement with research are different events. One does not establish the other.
Your reviewed result
Example review note: 'Current protocol: confirm version. Local passage: identify it. External source: identify the paper and supporting passage. Question for the team: state the possible difference. Unresolved context: list what needs confirmation.' Use the institution's review process. AttendMe does not automatically amend or approve a protocol.
Before you reuse the result
Use this final check to decide whether the work is ready to discuss, save or continue. A useful output preserves its evidence, its scope and the questions it could not answer.
- The review uses the current approved protocol version.
- Both sides of the possible difference have supporting passages.
- A version notice is not mistaken for evidence of clinical disagreement.
- The note states uncertainty and names the responsible team.