Skip to main content

Tag: Access and advocacy

Google Health’s: The Master of Context and Your Early Warning System

Please review my blog disclaimers and disclosures

Transparency & Context: My Beta Experience

  • Note on Personalization: Screenshots are from my real-world testing of the Google Health (formerly Fitbit) “Coach” during its beta rollout. These represent a highly personalized conversation. Because I have been “talking” with Gemini for a long time (in Google and in FitBit Pro), the AI has a longitudinal understanding of my specific medical roadmap—including things like my C5-7 disc replacement and chronic pacing goals.
  • No Guarantee of Results: Each user may have a different initial experience or conversation flow. Like any “learning partner,” the depth of the insights often depends on the context you provide over time.
  • Beta & Evolving Features: These visuals are part of the Fitbit Labs “Public Preview”. Features like “Unusual Trends” detection are currently in testing and may change or evolve over time.
  • Standard Safety Reminder: AI responses may contain mistakes and are not for medical advice. Always consult your healthcare team for clinical decisions.

Let’s talk about the Google Health Rollout that began May 19, 2026! I have been participating in the beta for FitBit Pro users, and I must say, I am impressed!

(It won’t replace Guava Health for me, but it is a wonderful addition.)

Have you ever walked into a follow-up appointment, described a new and terrifying symptom, only to be told it’s “just part of the healing process” or “normal”? When a provider dismisses your symptoms, they are often guessing and comparing your body to a textbook average. To get them to move from guessing to investigating, you need objective data.

TANGENT: If you find this interesting, check out the Words have Weight Series that I’m posting!

Walking into a clinic with your biometric data (including trends noted by your wearables) helps to change the dynamic: you are comparing you to YOU. Turning personal data into clinical leverage is the ultimate evolution of patient advocacy.

Google Health’s major platform rollout gives patients with chronic conditions a new set of tools to add to their baseline strategy. Here are some ways you can use this rollout to audit your care and bring the facts to your next appointment.


Master of Context and an Early Warning System

The new Google Health platform brings a clinical-grade environment directly to your phone. Google Health Premium (formerly FitBit Health Pro) serves as the home for the platform’s full Health Coach features.

Google Health is designed specifically to be the Master of Context. The mobile AI “Coach” can provide an “Early Warning System” for your day-to-day well-being:

  • The Coach is built to “talk” directly to you, your live wearable data, tracking key metrics like Heart Rate Variability (HRV), Resting Heart Rate (RHR), and Breathing Rate.
  • By continuously analyzing these metrics, the AI can pick up on subtle physiological shifts before you even consciously feel sick, helping you spot trends.
  • The conversational interface makes it excellent for quick, on-the-go checks to evaluate the potential impacts of medications, treatments, or even review that “something is off with my body” feeling.
Screenshots of the Google Health Coach app showing biometric data trends. Charts illustrate a declining Heart Rate Variability and rising Resting Heart Rate. Text labels describe these as "Vitals Validate Your Reality" and the "Lag Effect," explaining how data can predict a health flare before it is felt physically.
Physical Health Shifts Including Infections. Often physical infection stress shows up in your “data” long before you can articulate it to a doctor. Passive wearable algorithms can catch structural emergencies early—like triggering an alert for sustained resting tachycardia (lasting over 20 minutes) or alerting patients to AFib.

The AI Coach in Google Health can take those raw metrics a step further: it can actively recognize the metrics outside YOUR normal (e.g., resting heart rate increase). Increased resting HR can be associated with autonomic imbalance (Borhani et al., 2025), illness (Michard & Saugel, 2025), and as a key metric for remote arrhythmia management (Jena et al., 2025).

In my case, “Coach” recognized something was off as shown above – and what was off – well I had a kidney stone occluding the lower pole of a ureter. (Complete duplication of my ureters bilaterally … is interesting.)
Smartphone screenshots of the Google Health Coach app explaining the "Lag Effect." The text describes how Resting Heart Rate (RHR) often climbs 24-48 hours before a migraine or crash occurs. It positions biometrics as the "objective proof" for chronic illnesses like POTS or Hashimoto’s, validating physical stress even when a patient still feels "okay" in the moment.
Vitals Validate Your Reality.
Screenshots of a discussion with the Google Health Coach regarding a drop in ferritin levels to 9. The AI explains that low ferritin leads to iron deficiency and extreme fatigue by preventing oxygen delivery to tissues. It provides immediate next steps, including consulting a doctor, prioritizing rest, and adjusting physical therapy schedules to conserve energy.
Navigating Pitfalls, Pivots, and Trajectories. During medical treatments—like managing severe iron deficiency when your Ferritin drops to a critical 9—the Coach acts as an interactive sounding board to map out symptom strategies – and to understand the labs. It also tracks your data during the intervention.

When undergoing back-to-back iron infusions, the Coach can catch delayed shifts in your biometric data indicating an “adverse reaction” to a medication (i.e., Your body and the medication – didn’t get along).

Having that data readily available allows you to make safe, immediate adjustments with your care team to swap out the problematic medication before your next round, while the Coach continues chatting through your follow-up to monitor your recovery trajectory.

Externalizing Medical Memory

When you’re dealing with chronic illness or a sudden flare, your brain is already working overtime just to handle the pain and exhaustion. Expecting yourself to remember every single detail about when a symptom started or how your heart rate shifted is like trying to run a marathon while carrying a heavy suitcase.

Using a tool like Google Health isn’t about being ‘anxious’—it’s about being smart. It’s like having a backup drive for your brain. You let the app handle the heavy lifting of storing the data so you can save your limited energy—your ‘spoons’—for actually getting through the day and focusing on your recovery.

Offloading data recall to Coach can help you save your energy for the actual clinical conversation. This can help you present objective shifts in your objective data (i.e., biometrics).

A paper cutout-style infographic depicting a female runner facing forward. On the left side, representing the 'spoon-heavy' way, she is struggling to run a marathon while carrying a heavy, oversized suitcase that symbolizes the mental burden of tracking symptoms and timelines. On the right side, representing the 'sustainable' way, the runner has set the suitcase down and is running freely. The infographic visually represents how using Google Health as a secure data buffer allows patients to offload the mental task of data storage, saving their 'spoons' and energy for recovery.
Image in part created using Gemini (Google’s AI) with some modifications by Stephanie M. Nixon.

The Gemini integration inside the Google Health Coach changes how you interact with your health metrics. Instead scrolling through a list, the Coach synthesizes complex data into clear, plain-language summaries. This can be a relief for patients who feel completely overwhelmed by the “alphabet soup” of data during a physical flare.

Conversational Symptom Logging

As a Guava Health User, I am used to a symptom-tracking checklist that leads to “insights” paired with biometric data. So switching to indirect symptom logs that came out of my conversations with the AI Coach was initially uncomfortable to me.

If you want a rigid, heavily itemized manual symptom-tracking checklist, Google Health’s baseline menus leave a bit to be desired. There is an “other” section, but it isn’t extensive, and it won’t replace the deep, structured manual entry interfaces found in heavy lifters like Guava.

But here is the magic: it completely flips the script by tracking your symptoms through fluid conversation instead. The Coach is incredibly aware of your specific, ongoing body context—for instance, it remembers and keeps tabs on a stubborn ankle injury. Instead of forcing you to click through endless checkboxes and dropdown menus when you are low on “spoons,” you simply talk to the Coach about how you are feeling, and it handles the tracking dynamically within your chat history.

A conversation with the Google Health Coach where the user reports increased fatigue and coughing. The AI synthesizes data from Jan 09 to Jan 16, noting a decreasing Readiness Score, declining HRV, and inconsistent sleep. The coach "connects the dots," suggesting these physiological signals indicate the body is struggling to recover and advises prioritizing rest.
Providing guidance: Reviewing symptoms when a shift is noted in the biometrics, can help tie the information together.

The Longitudinal Brain: Memory Across Threads

Traditional AI tools often suffer from “amnesia,” resetting entirely every time you open a new window. Because Google Health Coach archives core context into persistent memory logs, it builds an ongoing longitudinal understanding of your medical roadmap.

For example, if you discuss a scheduled spinal fusion that gets pushed back due to sudden low Ferritin, the Coach remembers that timeline.

Weeks later, when you open an entirely separate chat session to ask about an isolated biomarker, the AI doesn’t start from scratch—it remembers your overarching journey, bridges the gap between different conversation loops, and actively checks back in on how you’re feeling ahead of the rescheduled surgery. It behaves like a true, long-term cognitive partner rather than a temporary chatbot.

Strict Privacy Guardrails & Clinical Security

Moving your health metrics into a consumer app understandably raises questions about data security. To address this, Google has implemented rigorous technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to ensure this environment meets strict HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) standards for storing and transmitting medical records.

Here are the strict guardrails established for the Google Health app rollout:

  • Complete Data Separation: Your clinical and wearable health profiles are kept in strict privacy silos, entirely separated from other consumer services like your Google Search history or YouTube recommendations.
  • No Ad Targeting or Data Selling: Google has committed to a strict guardrail: your personal health records, diagnoses, and daily biometric data are never sold to third parties and will never be used to target Google Ads.
  • Legal Accountability (BAAs): Google Cloud and its health services support compliance through formal Business Associate Agreements (BAAs)—formal contracts that hold the platform legally accountable for protecting your private health information.
  • Total Patient Control: You retain full ownership of your profile. You choose exactly which health portals to connect, and you have the power to revoke that access at any moment.
  • Granular Location Protections: For privacy-conscious or neurodivergent users, GPS tracking is strictly opt-in. Location data is primarily used to track distance and pace for specific outdoor activities, and permissions can be disabled at any device or app level at any time.
  • De-Identified Research: Participating in health research is completely voluntary and never automatic. Before any data is utilized, it undergoes strict de-identification protocols to remove personal identifiers (like names or emails) and is aggregated with data from thousands of others to study broad public health trends.

The “Spoon-Level” Google Health Strategy

When your energy is limited, preparing for a medical visit shouldn’t waste your precious “spoons”. You can easily adapt your use of Google Health to match your capacity on the day of your appointment:

  • The Medium-Energy Strategy (🥄🥄): Open your mobile app and ask the Google Health Coach to generate a summary of your recent biometric shifts.
  • The Outcome: Print out the AI-generated summary to serve as an instant, objective “talking points” script. This ensures your most critical concerns are accurately addressed even if you hit a wall of brain fog or pain in the exam room.
A graphic on a dark blue background featuring three overlapping mobile phone screen mockups. The screens show a text conversation with Google Health's "Ask Coach" AI in dark mode. The user asks how the coach can help a patient prepare for a medical appointment or an ER visit. The AI response describes itself as an "objective witness" that provides a clear timeline of physiological data, flags spikes in resting heart rate (RHR) or drops in heart rate variability (HRV), and creates targeted topic lists for upcoming appointments. Below the screens, white text provides a transparency note explaining that these are actual public preview conversations showing how the mobile-first AI picks up on body signals before flares, followed by a standard medical disclaimer.
Some of the ways Google Health can help with appointment prep take my app during the beta test.

The Bottom Line

Using an app to monitor your physiological baselines and symptom clusters isn’t a temporary tech trend—it is a necessary act of accessibility for patients navigating complex conditions.

You are not “obsessing” over your health; you are actively partnering in your care.

Utilizing these clinical-grade tools ensures that your medical chart reflects your true physical reality, forcing providers to move past standard labels and look directly at the facts.


Disclaimer: This post is for educational and patient advocacy purposes only. All product names, logos, and brands are property of their respective owners. “Google Health” and “Fitbit” are trademarks of their respective holders. Use of them does not imply any affiliation with, endorsement by, or sponsorship by them.

Citations

Borhani, S., et al. (2025). Automatic detection of persistent physiological changes after COVID infection via wearable devices with potential for long COVID management. Scientific Reports.

Michard, F., & Saugel, B. (2025). New sensors for the early detection of clinical deterioration. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.

Jena, N., et al. (2025). Wearable Technology in Cardiology: Advancements, Applications, and Future Prospects. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.

Access and advocacy, AI for health, chronic illness, google health, patient advocacy in healthcare, wearable technology

A highly conceptual graphic of an open, ancient-style lore book resting on a clipboard labeled 'Provider's Note.' The pages blend medical anatomical drawings of eyes and joints with mythical text titled 'Sagas of Patients' and 'Words Have Weight,' challenging the use of subjective language in medical charting.

Words Have Weight: The “Saga” of Subjective Charting

Part 2B: Provider Track – Liability of the Filter

Personal Narrative & Data Integrity:

  • Designated Record Set: This series represents a personal, professional audit of my own legally obtained medical history and “Designated Record Set”.
  • Factual Basis: All clinical data points—including the 169.4-minute gastric emptying result —are pulled directly from my documented clinical records.
  • Advocacy Intent: My goal is to highlight systemic disparities in medical documentation and foster better clinical communication.
  • Non-Defamation: This audit is a critique of the content and quality of documentation and the patterns of clinical bias, rather than an attack on specific individuals or institutions.

A Note on Neurodivergent Baseline:

Contextual Accuracy: Observations regarding communication style, energy, or behavior (often labeled “manic” or “pressured” in my records) must be viewed through the lens of my documented, lifelong ADHD diagnosis.

A ‘u’ was added (AuDHD) as a late diagnosis a few years ago providing a key to understanding why so many providers saw ‘manic’ behavior where there was actually just a neurodivergent person managing a health emergency. We have to stop labeling what we don’t understand.


Clinical documentation is a legal and clinical record. It should describe findings, reasoning, function, and uncertainty—not turn subjective impressions into a durable patient identity.

When providers prioritize narrative shorthand over objective data, the consequences extend beyond patient frustration. Subjective charting can bias future providers, delay appropriate workup, and create significant medicolegal risk.

The Choice: A Thread or a Relationship?

In a research study by Melanie Sloan and colleagues¹, one patient described her medical record as:

“A deranged Twitter feed… creating a completely unrecognizable image of me as a patient and a person.”²

As a provider, you have a choice:

  • The “Deranged Twitter Feed”: Do you want to be just another reactionary post in a chaotic thread of subjective dismissals?
  • The Anchor of Trust: Or do you want to be the provider they respect—the one who actually listens and anchors the record in data?

If you entered medicine for an ego trip or to exert power, there is no point in reading further. But if you are here to help, then I am asking you—as both a provider and a patient—to LISTEN.


The Contrast: Storytelling vs. Clinical Data

When you read a previous provider’s note describing a complex illness as a “saga,” it creates a powerful cognitive bias. It can cause you to actively ignore objective data sitting right in the chart.

Case Study: The “Histrionic” Filter vs. The Objective Truth

Consider one of my ER visits. Likely primed by a previous provider’s “saga” label, the clinician documented: “There is a histrionic component to her presentation.”

What the clinician ignored to maintain their narrative:

  • Hypovolemic Shock: My blood pressure was 80/51, requiring 39 minutes of critical care.
  • Inflammatory Markers: A WBC of 14.3, Neutrophils: 84.4%, Lymphocytes: 8.3%.
  • Radiographic Evidence: A High-Resolution Chest CT finalized one week prior explicitly documented “tree-in-bud nodularity,” the radiographic hallmark of small airway mucus plugging and infection.

When you allow a biased adjective to anchor your judgment, you write a psychiatric label on a patient whose complaint is legitimate and objectively noted in labs and imaging. And you become another domino falling in the chain all because you didn’t review all the data or allowed your diagnosis and assumptions to be guided by others. This is an indefensible medicolegal liability.

A woman holding up a stack of medical file folders, serving as the featured banner image for the Words Have Weight blog post on patient record advocacy.
Designed by Nixon Speech and Language LLC

Clinician Associated Trauma (CAT) is Real

Clinician Associated Trauma is the cumulative psychological harm caused by repeated medical gaslighting and biased charting.

  • The “Organization” Trap: I provided a chronological timeline of my worsening cough in hopes they would understand, only to have it called a saga. I spent the past 5 years trying to better organize my history, only to have it referred to as “30 pages of notes”.  
  • The Identity Error: When Precision Fails

In January 2020, a resident referred to my three-month medical crisis as a “saga” while incorrectly identifying me as “Ms. Dixon”. Most notably, the attending physician then signed off on this report, attesting that they “reviewed the resident’s note and agree with the history” .

In educational settings, using the wrong name on a child’s report would likely render the document invalid. In medicine, however, we allow a senior clinical supervisor to “verify” an error-ridden note, giving subjective character assessments the weight of permanent clinical truth. If a provider isn’t precise enough to get your name right, they aren’t precise enough to label your experience.

    Pro-Tip: Attestation Ethics.  Your signature on a resident or fellow's note is not a procedural "Next".  It is legal and clinical verification of accuracy.
    • The “Rubber Stamp” Risk: When you sign an attestation for a note containing an incorrect patient name or biased labels like “saga,” you are professionally validating a “deranged twitter feed” entry.
    • The Transparency Reality: Under the 21st Century Cures Act, patients see your attestation immediately. If you are too rushed to catch a wrong name, the patient (and the law) will assume you were too rushed to perform a rigorous clinical review.
    • The Clinical Standard: If a document’s basic identifiers are wrong, its clinical conclusions are suspect. Use your edit window to ensure the final record reflects the objective truth, not a “rubber-stamped” narrative.

    Technical Stewardship: Closing the Gap

    Longitudinal aggregation is the best defense against fragmented care.

    • Guava Health: Allows providers to reconcile conflicting documentation and see the “receipts”—like a 169.4-minute gastric half-time—before a subjective bias can take root.
    • Google Workspace + BAA: Provides secure, HIPAA-compliant infrastructure to handle high-stakes documentation.

    The Correction as a Collaboration

    Under the 21st Century Cures Act, the wall between the patient and the record has been removed. If an error exists, they will see it.

    • Acknowledge the Discrepancy: Respond with empathy: “I am sorry there are discrepancies… I am on your side!”, but mean it.
    • Avoid Blaming the Patient: Even if the patient had a chance to review whatever the documentation, it isn’t their fault the chart is wrong. That’s the provider’s job.
    • Update the Record: Whether through an addendum or voiding a note, ensure the final record reflects the functional and physiological truth.

    Humanity Over Perfection: The Due Diligence Standard

    We are all human. Patients don’t expect their providers to be perfect; they expect them to do their due diligence .

    Mistakes happen—a wrong name, a misinterpreted symptom, a “rubber-stamped” attestation . But the difference between a “mistake” and “Clinician Associated Trauma” is the willingness to be honest when your own “spoons” (capacity/energy) are lacking.

    The “Honest Pivot” Script

    If you are overwhelmed, behind schedule, or hit a wall with a complex case, don’t reach for a “saga” label to end the visit. Try radical honesty instead:

    “I want to be fully present for this conversation, and I know you took the time to come in today. Honestly, my capacity is low right now, and I want to give your data the deep thought it deserves. Can I review your records this week and follow up with a call or a telehealth visit in 10 days to discuss my findings?”

    Why This Pivot Saves the Relationship:

    • It Models Respect: You are acknowledging that the patient’s time and data are valuable.
    • It Prevents Bias: By pausing instead of rushing, you avoid making the “snap judgments” that lead to “histrionic” labels or identity errors.
    • It Shifts the Dynamic: You are no longer the “gatekeeper” with all the answers; you are a partner performing an audit.

    The Provider Challenge: The Mirror Test

    • Stay in Scope: If you are not a psychiatrist, do not reach for labels like “pressured speech” to pathologize a communication style. Investigate neuro-informed baselines (AuDHD) or physiological distress first. As I said in Part 1 – there are many reasons a person might speak with a fast rate beyond anxiety (and they aren’t zebra reasons…).
    • Document Uncertainty, Not Assumptions: Do not use psychiatric labels as a “wastebasket” for difficult diagnostics. Similarly, ask yourself … why is this patient bringing 30 pages of “hand-typed notes” to my appointment?

    Sometimes…the answer is as simple as the patient doesn’t want to forget the name of the 12 medications or…the patient’s hand cramps writing on your background history forms, so they have it available to print for providers.  And other times…their history is just that long. 

    Don’t assume their physical symptoms are anxiety – some of us blank when people ask questions, that doesn’t mean it’s somatization or anxiety.

    • Audit Your Adjectives: Adjectives that frame symptoms as a performance (“claims,” “dramatic,” “demonstrates”) transmit bias to every clinician who follows.
    • Document Function, Not Assumptions: I was an SLP unable to work for 3 weeks due to a vocal fold ulceration, yet a provider wrote my disability “surpassed objective findings”. Document the loss of function, not your “impression

    The Bottom Line: Be the Partner, Not the Domino

    A corrected chart or a thoughtful follow-up isn’t a sign of weakness; it is a higher standard of Clinical Data Stewardship. It protects you from medicolegal liability and ensures that every future provider sees a clear, objective physiological truth—not a “deranged twitter feed” of biased shorthand.

    If you became a provider because you want to help, then be the one who keeps the dominos standing.

    Bottom Line: A corrected chart isn’t just a win for the patient; it is a higher standard of Clinical Data Stewardship that protects you and ensures every future provider sees the truth, not a “saga”.


    References

    1. Sloan, M., Naughton, F., Harwood, R., Lever, E., D’Cruz, D., Sutton, S., Walia, C., Howard, P., & Gordon, C. (2020). Is it me? The impact of patient-physician interactions on lupus patients’ psychological well-being, cognition and health-care-seeking behaviour. Rheumatology Advances in Practice, 4(2), rkaa037. https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkaa037 
    2. Sloan, M., Bosley, M., Gordon, C., et al. (2025). “‘I still can’t forget those words’: mixed methods study of the persisting impact on patients reporting psychosomatic and psychiatric misdiagnoses.” Rheumatology. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaf115. PMID: 40037287; PMCID: PMC12107051
    3. Davis, B. (2021). “Derogatory Language in Charting: The Domino Effect.” Patient Safety Network. https://patientsafetyj.com/article/73542-derogatory-language-in-charting-the-domino-effect 
    4. Goddu, A. P., O’Conor, K. J., Lanzkron, S., et al. (2018). “Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(5), 685–691. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4583-7. PMID: 29374357; PMCID: PMC5910343.
    5. Park, J., Saha, S., Chee, B., Taylor, J., & Beach, M. C. (2021). “Physician Use of Stigmatizing Language in Patient Medical Records.” JAMA Network Open, 4(7), e2117052. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.17052 
    6. Barcelona, V., Scharp, D., Idnay, B. R., et al. (2024). “Identifying stigmatizing language in clinical documentation: A scoping review of emerging literature.” PLOS ONE, 19(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303653. PMID: 38941299; PMCID: PMC11213326
    7. Silverman, K. (2023). “Improving Health Equity by Eliminating Biased and Stigmatizing Language in Medical Notes.” Center for Health Care Strategies.
    8. CRICO (2021). “Cures Act Overview”. https://www.rmf.harvard.edu/Risk-Prevention-and-Education/Article-Catalog-Page/Articles/2021/Cures-Act-Overview 
    9. Pandita, D., Johnson, D., & Bledsoe, T. A. “Lab Results Reporting, Ethics, and the 21st Century Cures Act Rule on Information Blocking.” ACP Ethics Case Study Series. https://www.acponline.org/clinical-information/medical-ethics-and-professionalism/ethics-case-studies-education-resources/lab-results-reporting-ethics-and-the-21st-century-cures-act-rule-on-information-blocking 
    10. HHS.gov (2025). Your Medical Records: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/medical-records/index.html 
    11. Google Workspace (2026). “Gemini for Workspace: Enterprise Privacy and Model Training Standards.” https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/gemini/generative-ai-in-google-workspace-privacy-hub 
    12. TeamAI (2026). https://teamai.com/blog/large-language-models-llms/gemini-models-explained-the-complete-2026-guide/ 

    For more information about Guava Health go to https://guavahealth.com/ For more information about the FitBit transformation to Google Health coming 5/19/2026 go to https://health.google/

    Access and advocacy, chronic illness, clinical documentation bias, Clinician Associated Patient Trauma, medicolegal risk, patient advocacy in healthcare, patient gaslightling, providers

    Words Have Weight: Stopping the ‘Deranged Twitter Feed’¹ in Your Chart

    Part 2a

    All blog disclaimers here

    Personal Narrative & Data Integrity:

    • Designated Record Set: This series represents a personal, professional audit of my own legally obtained medical history and “Designated Record Set”.
    • Factual Basis: All clinical data points—including the 169.4-minute gastric emptying result —are pulled directly from my documented clinical records.
    • Advocacy Intent: My goal is to highlight systemic disparities in medical documentation and foster better clinical communication.
    • Non-Defamation: This audit is a critique of the content and quality of documentation and the patterns of clinical bias, rather than an attack on specific individuals or institutions.

    A Note on Neurodivergent Baseline:

    Contextual Accuracy: Observations regarding communication style, energy, or behavior (often labeled “manic” or “pressured” in my records) must be viewed through the lens of my documented, lifelong ADHD diagnosis.

    A ‘u’ was added (AuDHD) as a late diagnosis a few years ago providing a key to understanding why so many providers saw ‘manic’ behavior where there was actually just a neurodivergent person managing a health emergency. We have to stop labeling what we don’t understand.


    Have you ever read a medical note about yourself and thought: Who is this person? You are not alone. In a research study by Melanie Sloan and colleagues,¹ one patient described her medical record as:

    “A deranged Twitter feed… creating a completely unrecognizable image of me as a patient and a person.”²

    That quote hits hard. It describes what happens when a provider writes something subjective, negative, or dismissive in your chart. One note can change how the next provider sees you. And then the next. And then the next.

    Patient safety experts call this The Domino Effect.³ This is how chart bias spreads.

    What is Chart Bias?

    Chart bias happens when a provider writes words that sound like a judgment of your personality rather than a description of your health. These subjective adjectives can quietly shape your care before a new doctor even walks into the room.⁴

    Watch for “performance” words like:

    • Dramatic,Anxious, or “Histrionic”
    • Difficult 
    • “Saga”, Somatic/Somatization, or “Exaggerating”
    • “Well-appearing” (especially when objective data says otherwise)

    These words act as a path through your hospital record. They can lead the next doctor to subconsciously view your physical symptoms as a “performance,” questioning your credibility before you even speak.⁵


    My Story: Same Patient, Different Stories

    A few years ago, I saw my doctor for a cough that had lasted three months. I was hoarse and losing my voice. I provided a clear timeline and evidence of a bacterial infection. Instead of a diagnosis, the provider labeled my experience a “saga” and wrote that I was “demonstrating” my cough.The first note framed the encounter subjectively; the second documented objective evidence of infection.

    I wasn’t “demonstrating”— when I didn’t cough, I was taking shallow breaths. Because one cough led to more coughing, and coughing led to bladder incontinence (even mild is embarrassing, iykyk).

    Eight days later, a specialist looked at the same body but saw a different story:

    • Abnormal lung sounds (Rhonchi)
    • Rapid heart rate (Tachycardia)
    • Chest CT results: “Tree-in-bud nodularity,” which showed a likely infection.

    The first note framed the encounter subjectively; the second documented objective evidence of infection.

    When the Story Overwrites the Facts

    Later, in the ER, a doctor labeled my coughing “histrionic” despite contemporaneous objective findings including a blood pressure of 80/51 and an elevated white blood cell count paired with elevated neutrophils (84.4%) and low lymphocytes (8.3%). I will never know if the doctor was reading the “saga” in my chart, but somehow the data on the screen didn’t receive the same emphasis in that note as his perception of me as a “chronic pain” patient.  

    I eventually filed a HIPAA correction to have the word “histrionic” (and other comments) struck from my record. I did this because words in a chart don’t stay in one visit. They follow you.

    To this day, I still question what I could’ve done differently to avoid being misunderstood. Yes, when I go to the ER, I try to communicate past my pain past my symptoms in hopes because in my mind that is the best way to get help.  Sometimes, it works … Other times, it seems providers think if you can communicate that well you can’t be “that sick”. 


    Why This Matters

    Research shows that even one stigmatizing note can change how clinicians think about you. It can change how seriously they take your pain and how hard they look for a physical cause.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 In other words: your chart can become a story about how the provider perceives your character instead of a record of your health.¹, ² 

    And when I realized what that provider said and what another provider said – providers I thought I trusted, it felt like betrayal – it hurt.  

    Those comments didn’t match with my personality or with what I was experiencing in those moments in those hours on those days. And the thought that a provider would put those words, words I would’ve told interns not to use ever, in my chart – the chart of another provider, felt like a slap.  

    Could I have just ignored these comments and found new providers? Yes. But they would stay there.  So I have decided to advocate with whatever spoons I have.


    The “Spoon Theory” of Medical Advocacy

    Dealing with chronic infections, illness, providers, employers (concerned about productivity from missed work due to the first two-three), and trying to have a balanced life  – well it is absolutely fatiguing.  

    That means many of us come into these situations with our executive function cups full to overflowing.  Such situations require working memory – we need to hold in our memory what the provider says in the current appointment at System A, what the labs say, what our imaging says, what the other provider at System B, not to mention what we might need to take care of at work or home because we may need to schedule another appointment.

    So when I saw the note above in my chart, the biased note, it was like a “gut punch” that felt invalidating.  It drained my energy. And I know there are other patients (many women) out there like me. I thought the ER visit that night went okay – I thought the provider understood, then I saw that note. 

    Yes, can I look up all the terms to understand what each lab means? But the energy – it’s overwhelming:but that costs “spoons” you don’t have.

    For me, I have been using an AI Buffer – to separate the data from the disrespect, the dismissal, the gut punch, literally not being heard…    


    What You Can Do? (Action Plan)

    Safety note for readers.  

    Before you provide all your medical data to AI, I want you to understand security risks and how to protect your documents.  I take those risks because right now, it is the best way I can save my spoons and manage my health. 

    For me, these are my strategies to navigate care today at this moment.  I will provide more information about these paths later – but I hope these help:

    Summary table of healthcare consumer technology, data privacy risks, and biomarker tracking tools.

    Strategy Summary

    • Audit for Bias: Use Gemini (Thinking Mode) to help you objectively spot if a note describes your personality instead of your physiology.
    • Externalize Your Memory: Use Guava’s Body Map and Medication Tracker to replace the high-stress “spotlight” of trying to remember 32 medications during a 15-minute visit.
    • Provide the Receipts: Use your multi-year biometric trends (Heart Rate, HRV, etc.) to prove that your symptoms are a significant shift from your baseline, not “health anxiety”.
    • Protect Your Privacy: If you are managing sensitive documents like disability appeals or vocational reports, move them into a Google Workspace with a BAA for maximum protection.
    Pro-tip about redacting text within Adobe
    How to redact documents within Adobe

    Why This Tech Matters

    Using these tools isn’t about obsessing over every data point; it’s about Spoon Management. When you have a complex history—like Ulcerative Pancolitis or Gastrointestinal Dysmotility—you shouldn’t be expected to be your own medical librarian. These tools turn the “deranged Twitter feed” of a medical record into a searchable database that you control.

    Here’s how how I go about it

    1. Access Your Notes (Medical Records)

    Under the Cures Act, you have the right to see your clinical notes.⁹ Don’t just read the summary; get the Progress Notes. 

    Tips: Sign up for the patient portal. 

    Use the summary like a snapshot.  It’s the outline to the Progress Note (usually).  But, often it just lists your current medications or the appointments to schedule, etc. 

    2. Create an “AI Buffer” (Protect Your Spoons)

    Medical advocacy is exhausting. When a note feels like a “gut punch,” don’t waste your limited energy (“spoons”) manually looking up every term.

    • The Strategy: Use an AI tool to objectively “audit” the note. Ask: “Does this note focus on my health or my personality?” (If it focuses on your personality – ask yourself if that is the provider’s role in your care.)

    * The Privacy Choice: If you use an AI like Gemini, consider a Google Workspace with a BAA.11 This ensures your data isn’t used to train public models and isn’t reviewed by humans. It’s your “Safe Haven” for medical records. (I’ll talk more about this in another post – but I want to be sure you understand those risks.)

    If you’re thinking about setting up Google Workspace for yourself, keep an eye out for my upcoming post on how I’m using it to manage our household! I’ll be sharing a deep dive, and as a member of the Google Workspace Referral Program, I’ll share some information and discount links – we will both be rewarded. <3

    • Accuracy Tip: Always use “Thinking” or “Pro” mode for medical analysis. “Fast” modes can miss the technical nuances you need for an appeal.12

    3. Use Technology to “Translate” and “Talk”

    If you struggle with dense text due to dyslexia, a stroke, or a learning disability, use these apps to hear your data:

    • Guava Guardian (Beta): A personal health detective. It can voice-alert you to a “split chart” (duplicate records) and helps you see how symptoms like hoarseness correlate with objective biometrics like HRV.
    • Google Health Coach Pro (Coming May 19): This multimodal tool allows you to talk to your data. Instead of squinting at a screen, ask the Coach to “summarize my last labs in plain English.”

    4. Request a Correction

    If you see something inaccurate or stigmatizing, say something.There are several paths and each depends on your comfort level with the provider.  

    I’ve used emails, faxes, portal messages, and phone calls to navigate these issues.  In the portal, be aware that other providers in that system can likely see your messages. (I didn’t know this.)

    How to start: 

    • Contact the provider directly via the patient portal to request the correction/clarification: “I was reviewing my visit note from [Date] and noticed the history doesn’t match the objective data from my specialist. I’ve attached the relevant lab results and cultures to help clarify the timeline. Could we update the record to reflect these physical findings accurately?” 
    • Contact the hospital’s Medical Records or Patient Advocacy department and ask about the amendment process.
    • For small practices, there is still a path for requesting corrections – this is your right to request it and there must be a path provided to you in that LONG HIPAA statement you received. Ask.

    Phrases you can use:

    • “I read my note and this wording does not reflect what happened.”
    • “Can we focus the record on the objective lab findings from that visit?”
    • “I would like to add an addendum to reflect the functional impact of my symptoms.”

    I’ll go into this further in a separate post.  I don’t want to tell you it will always work out.  But I do want you to know this is your right. And I understand it isn’t as easy as I said just now. 


    The Bottom Line

    Your medical chart should describe your health. It should not turn one provider’s opinion into your permanent identity. If you feel like your chart describes a stranger instead of you, you are not wrong to question it.


    References

    1. Sloan, M., Naughton, F., Harwood, R., Lever, E., D’Cruz, D., Sutton, S., Walia, C., Howard, P., & Gordon, C. (2020). Is it me? The impact of patient-physician interactions on lupus patients’ psychological well-being, cognition and health-care-seeking behaviour. Rheumatology Advances in Practice, 4(2), rkaa037. https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkaa037 
    2. Sloan, M., Bosley, M., Gordon, C., et al. (2025). “‘I still can’t forget those words’: mixed methods study of the persisting impact on patients reporting psychosomatic and psychiatric misdiagnoses.” Rheumatology. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaf115. PMID: 40037287; PMCID: PMC12107051
    3. Davis, B. (2021). “Derogatory Language in Charting: The Domino Effect.” Patient Safety Network. https://patientsafetyj.com/article/73542-derogatory-language-in-charting-the-domino-effect 
    4. Goddu, A. P., O’Conor, K. J., Lanzkron, S., et al. (2018). “Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(5), 685–691. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4583-7. PMID: 29374357; PMCID: PMC5910343.
    5. Park, J., Saha, S., Chee, B., Taylor, J., & Beach, M. C. (2021). “Physician Use of Stigmatizing Language in Patient Medical Records.” JAMA Network Open, 4(7), e2117052. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.17052 
    6. Barcelona, V., Scharp, D., Idnay, B. R., et al. (2024). “Identifying stigmatizing language in clinical documentation: A scoping review of emerging literature.” PLOS ONE, 19(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303653. PMID: 38941299; PMCID: PMC11213326
    7. Silverman, K. (2023). “Improving Health Equity by Eliminating Biased and Stigmatizing Language in Medical Notes.” Center for Health Care Strategies.
    8. CRICO (2021). “Cures Act Overview”. https://www.rmf.harvard.edu/Risk-Prevention-and-Education/Article-Catalog-Page/Articles/2021/Cures-Act-Overview 
    9. Pandita, D., Johnson, D., & Bledsoe, T. A. “Lab Results Reporting, Ethics, and the 21st Century Cures Act Rule on Information Blocking.” ACP Ethics Case Study Series. https://www.acponline.org/clinical-information/medical-ethics-and-professionalism/ethics-case-studies-education-resources/lab-results-reporting-ethics-and-the-21st-century-cures-act-rule-on-information-blocking 
    10. HHS.gov (2025). Your Medical Records. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/medical-records/index.html 
    11. Google Workspace (2026). “Gemini for Workspace: Enterprise Privacy and Model Training Standards.” https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/gemini/generative-ai-in-google-workspace-privacy-hub 

    Access and advocacy, Bias, chronic illness, clinical documentation bias, Clinician Associated Patient Trauma, empower patients, patient advocacy in healthcare, Words have Weight

    A split-screen infographic titled 'Words Have Weight.' The left side is in black and white, labeled 'The Subjective Narrative,' featuring dismissive clinical terms like 'Typical for Stephanie,' 'Manic,' and 'Not Convinced.' The right side is in vibrant color, labeled 'The Objective Reality,' showing medical data like '169.4-minute gastric emptying,' '65% O2 saturation,' and 'ADHD Diagnosis 1979.' The graphic highlights the disparity between clinical bias and patient data.

    Words have Weight: Labels vs. Life, Part 1a

    Patient Track: Being good at makeup, didn’t mean I was well.

    Disclaimers.

    Professional Standards and Scope:

    • Credentials and expertise: Dr. Stephanie Michelle Nixon is a PhD-level Speech-Language Pathologist and consultant.
    • Educational purpose: The content in this series is shared for informational, educational, and advocacy purposes only.
    • No clinical relationship: Engagement with this content does not constitute medical advice, a clinical diagnosis, or the establishment of a patient-provider relationship.
    • Medical consultation: Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health providers with questions regarding a medical condition.

    Personal Narrative & Data Integrity:

    • Designated Record Set: This series represents a personal, professional audit of my own legally obtained medical history and “Designated Record Set”.
    • Factual Basis: All clinical data points—including the 169.4-minute gastric emptying result —are pulled directly from my documented clinical records.
    • Advocacy Intent: My goal is to highlight systemic disparities in medical documentation and foster better clinical communication.
    • Non-Defamation: This audit is a critique of the content and quality of documentation and the patterns of clinical bias, rather than an attack on specific individuals or institutions.

    A Note on Neurodivergent Baseline:

    Contextual Accuracy: Observations regarding communication style, energy, or behavior (often labeled “manic” or “pressured” in my records) must be viewed through the lens of my documented, lifelong ADHD diagnosis.

    A ‘u’ was added (AuDHD) as a late diagnosis a few years ago providing a key to understanding why so many providers saw ‘manic’ behavior where there was actually just a neurodivergent person managing a health emergency. We have to stop labeling what we don’t understand.

    Image torn in two with objective health statements from visit notes on the left and subjective comments on the right (some that did not match with objective testing)
    Which version of you is in your medical record? On the right are the labels found in my permanent charts—words like “typical,” “rushed,” “not sick appearing”, “well groomed”. On the left is the objective data my body was reporting at that exact same time.

    Words have weight. After auditing my own medical charts across different institutions, it became obvious just how much weight those words carry—and how they can shadow a patient for decades. And let me say, words can hurt.

    During an initial appointment years ago, a provider looked at me and said, “You look well.” My response came quickly: “I’m good at makeup.”

    How many of us get up, put on our “mask” (a smile, our makeup, shallow breaths to avoid a cough), and go about our day? I know I did. I watched TikToks to improve my makeup skills while I was getting sicker. I didn’t want the world to see me looking as bad as I felt.

    But do we really need to look as bad as we feel for a provider to believe the data? I once showed a provider a photo of myself before I put on my makeup that morning, just so she could see the reality of my physical state. Her response? “Why are you showing me this?”

    Looking back, I realize that if a provider needs you to look “sick enough” to believe your symptoms, they aren’t the right provider for you.

    Receipts

    • The Science: A specialist was “not convinced” I had a condition, despite a nuclear study providing a 169.4 minute gastric half-time – nearly double the normal limit.
    • The “Well-Appearing” Paradox: My chart once documented me as “well-appearing” and in “no acute distress” while my oxygen saturation was recorded at 65% at room air. (Note. The 65% was likely associated with PVCs.)
    • The “Performance” Label: My cough was described as something I “demonstrated” when I was actually navigating multiple bacterial respiratory infections (including … MAC and Staph).
    • The Missing “u”: My speech was labeled as “pressured,” a psychiatric term that completely ignored my AuDHD baseline (ADHD 1979 / Autism 2024; iykyk).

    Audit Your Medical History

    1. Have you ever found a statement in your records that felt more like a character critique than a clinical note?
    2. What is one “label” a provider gave you that was the complete opposite of your reality?
    3. How did it change the way you presented yourself at your next visit?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    One response to “Words have Weight: Labels vs. Life, Part 1a”

    1. […] If you find this interesting, check out the Words have Weight Series that I’m […]

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Access and advocacy, clinical documentation bias, healthcare communication disparities, invisible illness, medical gaslighting examples, medical record transparency, patient advocacy in healthcare, subjective vs. objective medical notes

    Clinical documentation bias infographic by Dr. Stephanie Nixon. A split-screen visual titled "Bias in chart notes" contrasting subjective provider labels like "somatization" and "well appearing" with objective medical receipts like "MAC and Staph pneumonia," "169.4-minute gastric half-time". This visual illustrates medical gaslighting and the importance of accurate, data-driven medical records for neurodivergent (AuDHD) patients.

    Words have Weight: The Mirror Test, Part 1b

    Provider Track: Would you want these words in your permanent record?

    Disclaimers.

    Professional Standards and Scope:

    • Credentials and expertise: Dr. Stephanie Michelle Nixon is a PhD-level Speech-Language Pathologist and consultant.
    • Educational purpose: The content in this series is shared for informational, educational, and advocacy purposes only.
    • No clinical relationship: Engagement with this content does not constitute medical advice, a clinical diagnosis, or the establishment of a patient-provider relationship.
    • Medical consultation: Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health providers with questions regarding a medical condition.

    Personal Narrative & Data Integrity:

    • Designated Record Set: This series represents a personal, professional audit of my own legally obtained medical history and “Designated Record Set”.
    • Factual Basis: All clinical data points—including the 169.4-minute gastric emptying result —are pulled directly from my documented clinical records.
    • Advocacy Intent: My goal is to highlight systemic disparities in medical documentation and foster better clinical communication.
    • Non-Defamation: This audit is a critique of the content and quality of documentation and the patterns of clinical bias, rather than an attack on specific individuals or institutions.

    A Note on Neurodivergent Baseline:

    Contextual Accuracy: Observations regarding communication style, energy, or behavior (often labeled “manic” or “pressured” in my records) must be viewed through the lens of my documented, lifelong ADHD diagnosis.

    A ‘u’ was added (AuDHD) as a late diagnosis a few years ago providing a key to understanding why so many providers saw ‘manic’ behavior where there was actually just a neurodivergent person managing a health emergency. We have to stop labeling what we don’t understand.

    Clinical documentation bias infographic by Dr. Stephanie Nixon. A split-screen visual titled "Bias in chart notes" contrasting subjective provider labels like "somatization" and "well appearing" with objective medical receipts like "MAC and Staph pneumonia," "169.4-minute gastric half-time". This visual illustrates medical gaslighting and the importance of accurate, data-driven medical records for neurodivergent (AuDHD) patients.

    Clinical documentation is a record of pathology, not a character assessment. Yet, after auditing my own medical records, I found decades of “subjective” notes that had nothing to do with my physiological state and everything to do with a provider’s snap judgement and dismissal of my lived reality.

    It doesn’t matter if a provider feels these words “justified” in the moment. Once they are in the patient’s chart, they become a permanent filter for every provider who follows.

    The words on the black and white side minimize and dismiss both objective findings and my symptoms.

    In the image above, a provider documented that my degree of disability ‘surpassed objective findings.’ In doing so, they failed to recognize my functional reality: I was a Speech-Language Pathologist unable to see my patients for 3 weeks after losing my voice to an ulceration on my vocal fold. When documentation focuses on ‘surpassing findings’ but ignores a total loss of vocational function, the clinical record is incomplete. We must document the patient’s life, not just the provider’s impression.

    The Scope-of-Practice Gap:

    I found repeated psychiatric judgments—labels like ‘pressured speech’ and ‘somatization’—written by specialists who were not psychiatrists or behavioral neurologists. Labeling a communication style as ‘pressured speech’ without establishing a neuro-informed baseline (AuDHD) isn’t just a misinterpretation—it is a specialist overstepping their scope to pathologize a natural speech rate instead of investigating physical health.

    What they called “pressured”:

    • A Neurodivergent Baseline: If anyone had paused to ask, I would have laughed and told them that I had the words “SLOW DOWN!” in bold on every note for every presentation during my post-graduate education.
    • Physiological Distress: Rapid speech and “short rushes” are frequently associated with shortness of breath. Documentation that reaches for a psychiatric label while a patient is in respiratory distress is a failure of clinical reasoning.
    • Fluency Dynamics: As an SLP, I recognize these patterns as potential symptoms of cluttering among other speech and language disorders.

    None of these clinical presentations require a mental health diagnosis. When we reach for mental health labels to describe a fast speech rate, we ignore the very real physical or fluency-based realities of the patient standing in front of us.

    The “Incidental” Dismissal

    I once had a specialist (not a gynecologist or GI) dismiss my appendectomy as “incidental” to my laparoscopy for Stage IV extra-pelvic endometriosis. When a pathology report confirms ‘Appendix – Endometriosis,’ that appendectomy is a diagnostic data point, not an ‘incidental’ event. Labeling it as such signals to every future provider that the patient’s surgical history—and their reported pain—is irrelevant.

    The Receipts:

    • The Science: A 169.4-minute gastric half-time (normal is <90) was dismissed by a specialist who was “not convinced.”
    • The Paradox: A 65% O2 saturation reading was recorded alongside a note that I was “well-appearing”. (Note. The 65% O2 reading was likely associated with PVCs based on the other data in the visit.)
    • The Shorthand: A systemic crisis involving a 20-lb weight gain and pitting edema was labeled “long story typical for Stephanie”.

    The Challenge:

    • The Mirror Test: If you were the patient, would you want a crisis described as “typical” for you?
    • Stay in Scope: If you aren’t a psychiatrist, why are you reaching for psychiatric labels to describe a patient’s communication? (Also, check with the patient. Had that provider asked me, I would’ve laughed and told her that my rate of speech has always been fast…in fact, I must actively think about it to speak more slowly.)
    • Watch for Bias: Literally watch for it. If you see a dismissive note from a colleague, don’t carry it forward. Check the data, ask the patient, and document the objective truth.

    Let’s hold the record to a higher standard. How can we ensure our “Subjective” notes don’t do lasting harm?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Access and advocacy, chronic illness, clinical documentation bias, empower patients, invisible illness, more than labs, neurodivergence, patient advocacy in healthcare, subjective vs. objective medical notes

    When Your Insurance Company Suggests Medical Impossibilities

    Disclaimers

    • The following post is based entirely on my personal experience navigating the DC Government CareFirst BluePreferred PPO Plan and its Pharmacy Benefit Manager, CVS Caremark.
    • I am a healthcare professional and a patient, not an attorney or an insurance broker. This is NOT legal or financial advice. While I make no guarantees about the results of using these methods, my goal is to share my knowledge, documentation strategies, and experiences so you can better advocate for your own health.
    • This post is a direct follow-up to my previous guide on auditing your Explanation of Benefits (EOBs).
    • Any information from conversations with CVS Caremark or CareFirst comes from my notes taken during the calls in my ‘patient’s log’ as described in my blog. These notes were taken contemporaneously to ensure an accurate, time-stamped record of the instructions provided to me. All references to contractual rights are drawn directly from the governing CareFirst Blue Preferred PPO Evidence of Coverage Document.
    • Specific to the Certificate of Coverage (Evidence of Coverage), a CareFirst employee provided it to me when I was unable to obtain a copy from DCHR. If there is mismatch between the version I have and the version with DCHR, well that’s for another post. (Stay tuned.)
    • Please note: I currently have a formal grievance regarding this matter under active review with the District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities & Banking (DISB; DCID#: 2065134). I have also contacted the DC City Council and Mayor’s office. All regulatory violations discussed below are alleged based on my documentation, and I will provide an update once I receive a final disposition.

    The Tech Black Hole: Where Prior Authorizations Go To Die

    If your doctor tells you they are waiting on your insurance, and your insurance tells you they are waiting on your doctor, someone is lying. Actually, it’s probably the software.

    I tracked a pattern across five medical specialties (including neurology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, and my PCP). Providers were submitting prior authorizations through a vendor portal called CoverMyMeds. The system would tell the pharmacy the request was “sent,” but the providers never received the questionnaires. After 48 to 72 hours, the system automatically closed the files for “no response”.

    This is a de facto denial of benefits without clinical review, likely caused by a software defect. I realized something was off in December 2025 when I was still with Aetna, but I thought it might just be the facility.

    When providers had the same trouble in January 2026 with the same result, I realized that didn’t fit. It seemed more “systemic”, and the only commonality across these situations was that the prior authorizations were being submitted through CoverMyMeds. When speaking with a CVS Caremark Sr Rep in February, I was told that providers and patients had been expressing the same frustration I just noted. Additionally, you can see more here in the reviews.

    (DISCLAIMER: This is an observation based on a pattern of incomplete PAs for the same reasons and the reactions of providers who all indicated the same issue: They never received requests for the information.)

    Clinical Absurdity and Medical Impossibility

    What do you do when a senior representative at your Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) suggests you ask your provider to give a 30-day prescription for a 90-day quantity of a medication?

    I’ve been taking the same dose of a brand-name maintenance medication for over 20 years. Recently, my PBM, CVS Caremark, approved my brand medically necessary PA (2/27/2026) but restricted the system to only dispense a 34-day supply. (This changed to 30-days less than 12 days later.)

    What followed was a masterclass in administrative gaslighting:

    • Excuse 1: First, they told me I just needed my provider to file a ‘maintenance exception’.
    • Excuse 2: Then, they told my provider that an exception didn’t actually exist. When I called CVS Caremark, a Senior Representative blamed the manufacturer, claiming they restrict the medication to 30 days. I addressed this odd statement as there is nothing on the manufacture’s website or the web indicating the recommendation was accurate*.
      • The “Solution”: Finally, the Senior Representative spoke with the Prior Authorization team again. Their solution? Have my provider submit a prescription for 180 Celebrex 200 mg capsules to be taken over 30 days.

    * Note. That is 6 pills a day of a medication where the FDA safe limit is two. Also, while on hold on that date, I emailed the manufacturer, Viatris, and received the response below:

    The hurdles of navigating PBM decisions that do not match plan documents. Images include screenshots of my CareFirst Blue Preferred PPO Evidence of Coverage.  This includes screenshots of conversation notes and denials of maintenance medication PA requests.
    Screenshots in this image are from:
    -CareFirst BluePreferred PPO Certificate of Coverage (Plan Sponsor: Government of the District of Columbia) (Obtained via CareFirst)
    -Responses to medication PA requests from CVS Caremark
    -Notes from my conversations with representatives at CVS Caremark
    Message with Viatris
    I contacted Viatris directly to confirm they had not changed their prescription recommendations.

    I was stunned. I pointed out that this sounded like “creative pharmaceutical benefits”—otherwise known as insurance fraud. The representative laughed.

    I didn’t know what to say as I got off the phone.

    I spoke with my amazing Health Advocate and PCP, and then dug into my hundred-page policy myself. 

    I found Section 10(a)(4), which explicitly allows a medication like mine to be classified under a “Maintenance Medical Exception” for a 90-day fill. So I’m unsure what rules the senior representative was looking at, but they definitely did not match the rulebook the CVS Caremark Resolutions Specialist saw on 2/27/2026.

    So, I filed a complaint with DISB

    DISB is the District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking.

    Acknowledgement from DISB
    Note. CVS Caremark was mentioned as the PBM also responsible in the filing. Because CareFirst writes the “rules” I put them as the primary group in the complaint.

    Since that date, I have contacted DC City Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser via email. There are more issues than just the above, but I will explain how I did this in another post.

    As of 4/10/2026

    After an almost 1-hour call with CVS Caremark on 4/10/2026, a Senior Representative informed me that she could see the maintenance medication exception in my plan documents. At the end of the call, she said that the issue needed to be sent to “account management” and that such issues are often corrected after 5 business days.

    I have not heard anything as of 4/18/2026.

    The Patient’s Playbook: Protect Yourself

    Insurance companies rely on your exhaustion. You must document everything and demand your legal rights.

    • Track Every Call: Stop scribbling on scrap paper. Use the free Google Form I created—my “Patient’s Log”—to track the date, time, representative name, and action items of every call. Evidence is the only thing that wins appeals.
    • Check Your EOBs: If you are on a PPO and see a sudden deductible applied to standard pharmacy claims, call your insurer, demand an “Accumulator Adjustment,” and report a “Plan Design Error.”

    Never take a verbal denial at face value. You must read the actual rules in your Certificate of Coverage (COC) to catch their lies—just like a Resolutions Specialist pointed out the ‘Maintenance Medical Exception’ in my contract leading me to push a Senior Representative at CareFirst about the frustration I had actually…getting one. (i.e., I couldn’t.)

    The Golden Rule: Get Your Certificate of Coverage (COC)

    Patients and Providers: Never take a verbal denial at face value. Demand the policy in writing, contact the manufacturer if they are blamed, and report “creative pharmaceutical benefits” to your state insurance administration immediately 

    To do this, you must get a copy of your Certificate of Coverage (COC). This is the governing rulebook—usually over 100 pages—not the short “Summary of Benefits.”

    Under federal disclosure standards (specifically ERISA), if you submit a written request to your plan administrator for your governing plan documents, they are legally required to provide them to you within 30 days. Failure to comply with this federal disclosure window can carry potential statutory penalties of up to $110 per day.

    Stay tuned—because simply obtaining my COC from the DC Government (DCHR) has been an entirely separate battle. I have a copy, but not via DCHR, despite repeated requests.

    🗣️ Please share this post and tag @MayorBowser, @CMCHenderson, and the DC City Council Committee on Business and Economic Development. We need proactive DISB market conduct audits, not just individual complaint responses.

    Trademarks and Fair Use Notice: All company names, logos, and trademarks—including CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, CVS Caremark, Viatris, and any brand-name prescription drugs (such as Celebrex)—are the property of their respective owners. Their inclusion in this post and associated images is for educational, informational, and advocacy purposes only and does not imply any affiliation or endorsement.

    Copyright © 2026 Nixon Speech and Language, All Rights Reserved.

    Access and advocacy Bias chronic illness claims processing clinical documentation bias Clinician Associated Patient Trauma communication log deductible Department of Education doge Dyslexia education empower patients errors processing claims google health Guava Health Health apps healthcare communication disparities health insurance health insurance appeals health insurance mistakes Independent Funding innovation Institute of Education Sciences invisible illness Kanban Task Tracker managing your health max out of pocket medical gaslighting examples medical record transparency medicolegal risk more than labs neurodivergence NIH Organizer patient advocacy in healthcare patient gaslightling pharmacy benefit managers Planner providers Research Funding Spoonie life subjective vs. objective medical notes wearable technology Words have Weight

    Access and advocacy, health insurance, health insurance mistakes, pharmacy benefit managers

    Don't lose track of health insurance calls

    Don’t Lose Track of Health Insurance Calls: A free tool for patients and families

    Father and his children at the table

    Have you ever spent hours on a call with a provider or insurance company and then when you call back you’re told they have no record of the call? If so, you know how exhausting self-advocacy can be.

    Managing healthcare for yourself or your family shouldn’t require a law degree, but keeping a detailed “paper trail” is one of the most important things you can do when disputing a bill, fighting for a prior authorization, or coordinating care.

    As a patient and provider, I know that advocating for care and coverage is hard enough. So I am sharing a tool I made for me and my husband in January 2026: A Healthcare and Insurance Communication Log. (See my last post for more information.)

    This tool was made primarily for dealing with health insurance (including our pharmacy benefit manager).

    What is it?

    A simple, customizable Google Form that you can fill out on your phone or computer during or immediately after a phone call. Use it to track:

    • Date and time of the conversation
    • Who you spoke to
    • What you discussed
    • What your next steps (and their next steps) are
    • And more…

    You can quickly reference the key information needed from previous calls by looking at the entries in the form: (e.g., name of who you spoke with, company they are with, and date/time of the last communication, what was said, etc.).

    The form

    A Quick Word on Privacy: Share the Tool, Not Your Data

    If you find this call log helpful, we absolutely want you to share it with your friends, neighbors, or online support groups! However, it is crucial that you share the tool safely.

    Because your copied Google Form is tied directly to your personal Google account and your private spreadsheet, sharing your specific form link outside of your immediate family (more specifically those involved in your healthcare and health insurance decisions).

    If you send someone your personal link to copy for their own use, you will accidentally give them access to your Protected Health Information (PHI) and private medical notes.

    The safe way to share:

    The safe way to share: If you want to recommend this tool to someone else, do not share your Google Form link. Instead, simply copy the web address (URL) of this blog post and send that to them! This ensures they can read the instructions and download their own clean, private template that is completely separate from your data.

    Disclaimer:

    The Short Version: (Simply put)

    • This is just a helpful tool: This tracker is a free organizational aid, not official medical or legal advice, and downloading it does not make you a patient of Nixon Speech and Language.
    • This tool does not set reminders for you.
    • You are in charge of your data: The information you type goes straight into your personal Google account, not ours. You are responsible for keeping your own account and passwords secure.
    • Be mindful of privacy: Free Google accounts are not strictly protected by HIPAA (healthcare privacy laws). Please be careful about typing highly sensitive information (like Social Security numbers) into the form, and make sure you track strict insurance deadlines on your main calendar, too.
    • Share the tool, not your data. Share the link to the blog to help your friends, not your own form.

    Longer version

    Please read before downloading: This form is a self-help organizational tool provided courtesy of Nixon Speech and Language, LLC. It is not a medical device, a legal record, and does not constitute professional medical or legal advice, nor does it establish a provider-patient relationship. Do not rely solely on this form for critical deadlines. By downloading this template, you acknowledge that you are the sole owner of the data entered and assume all responsibility for securing your personal Google account. Standard, free Google accounts are generally not HIPAA-compliant environments, so please exercise caution when entering highly sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI).

    By downloading this template, you acknowledge that you are the sole owner of the data entered and assume all responsibility for securing your personal Google account. Standard, free Google accounts are generally not HIPAA-compliant environments, so please exercise caution when entering highly sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI).

    How to set it up

    • Make your copy: Click the link at the bottom of this post and select “Make a copy.”
    • Customize your form: Open your new form and edit the placeholder text.
      • Change the “Who was the call about?” question to list your specific family members.
      • Update the “Which organization did you contact?” question to list your main contacts (e.g., Blue Cross, Aetna, CVS Caremark).
    • Publish the form. Be sure to copy the link after publishing for your use.
    • Save it for easy access:
      • Fillable form: Bookmark the link to your fillable form on your computer (in Google Drive), or save it to your phone’s home screen so you can have it ready to complete during your next call.
      • Bookmark the file used to create the fillable form: This is where you’ll find all your call logs. You can print (or PDF) specific responses or export all responses to sheets.
    Make the fillable form an app on your phone
    Star the backstage form in Google Drive so you can review responses during calls.
    • Be sure to hit submit when you finish the call. If you don’t, your call log won’t save.

    💡 Pro-Tip: Make it a Household Effort!

    If you share healthcare duties with a spouse, partner, or adult child, you can use this single form to track everyone’s calls in one central place!

    Once you have copied the form to your Google Drive and customized your family’s names, simply click the purple “Send” button at the top right of the screen. You can email the link directly to your partner, or copy the link and text it to them.

    Have them save that link to their phone’s home screen. Now, whether it’s you calling the PBM about a prescription or your spouse calling the provider about a bill, all of your notes will feed into the exact same spreadsheet. No more asking, “Wait, what did the insurance rep tell you yesterday?”

    The following applies only to those you want to share access to protected health information: If they need to be able to reference all calls for your household/family, be sure to share the backstage link AND fillable form.

    📱 Make It an “App” on Your Phone

    The easiest way to use this log is to save it directly to your phone’s home screen. That way, you don’t have to dig through your Google Drive every time you make a call.

    First, get your fillable link: Open your form on your computer, click the purple “Send” button at the top right, click the link icon (the little chain), and copy that link. Email or text that link to your phone, then follow these steps:

    For iPhone (Safari):

    1. Open the link on your phone using the Safari browser.
    2. Tap the Share icon at the very bottom of the screen (it looks like a square with an arrow pointing up).
    3. Scroll down the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
    4. Type a short name for it (like “Insurance Log”) and tap Add in the top right corner.

    For Android (Chrome):

    1. Open the link on your phone using the Google Chrome browser.
    2. Tap the Menu icon in the top right corner (the three vertical dots).
    3. Scroll down and tap Add to Home screen.
    4. Type a short name for it (like “Insurance Log”) and tap Add.

    Now you will have a shiny new icon on your phone right next to your other apps. Just tap it whenever you are on a call!

    📂 How to View Your Call History (The form and spreadsheet)

    Think of your Google Form like a restaurant. The shortcut you saved to your phone is the “Front Door”—it’s just the menu where you place your new order. To see the history of every call you have ever logged, you have to go “Backstage” into your Google Drive.

    Here is how to find your notes:

    1. Go to your Google Drive: On a computer, go to drive.google.com and log in with the exact same Google account you used to copy the template.
    2. Open the “Backstage” File: Find your saved form (e.g., “Healthcare Communication Log”) and double-click to open it. This opens the Editor view.
    3. Click the Responses Tab: At the very top center of the screen, click the word Responses (it is right next to “Questions”).
    4. Create Your Master Spreadsheet: For the best view, look for the little green icon that says “Link to Sheets” (or “View in Sheets”) near the top right of the Responses section.

    Clicking that green button will instantly generate a clean, organized Google Spreadsheet containing every single detail of every call you have ever submitted.

    Move all the data to Google Sheets
    You can see all responses as well by clicking responses at the top.

    📄 Need Hard Proof? How to Save a Call as a PDF

    If you are filing a formal appeal or need to prove exactly how many times you contacted your insurance company about a specific issue, you can export individual call logs as clean, printable PDF documents.

    Here is how to do it:

    1. Go “Backstage” into your form and click the Responses tab.
    2. Instead of looking at the spreadsheet, click the Individual tab (located right next to “Summary” and “Question”).
    3. You will see your form filled out exactly as you submitted it. Use the < and > arrows to flip through your history until you find the specific call you need.
    4. Click the Printer icon at the top right corner of that specific response.
    5. When your computer’s print menu pops up, change the “Destination” or “Printer” from your physical home printer to Save as PDF.

    Now you have a professional, timestamped document you can attach directly to an appeal letter or an email to your provider!

    PDF an entry

    Get the template

    Ready to get organized? Click below to copy the template to your Google Drive:

    Please read before downloading: This form is a self-help organizational tool provided courtesy of Nixon Speech and Language, LLC. It is not a medical device, a legal record, and does not constitute professional medical or legal advice, nor does it establish a provider-patient relationship. Do not rely solely on this form for critical deadlines. By downloading this template, you acknowledge that you are the sole owner of the data entered and assume all responsibility for securing your personal Google account. Standard, free Google accounts are generally not HIPAA-compliant environments, so please exercise caution when entering highly sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI).

    By downloading this template, you acknowledge that you are the sole owner of the data entered and assume all responsibility for securing your personal Google account. Standard, free Google accounts are generally not HIPAA-compliant environments, so please exercise caution when entering highly sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI).

    Remember, share the post, not your data.

    By clicking here you acknowledge that you have reviewed the disclaimer.

    Information provided in this post by, Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is provided in good faith. Nixon Speech and Language, LLC makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information.

    Access and advocacy, claims processing, health insurance, health insurance appeals, health insurance benefits, health insurance mistakes, managing your health, pharmacy benefit managers

    “Patient’s Log”: Track your Insurance Calls Like a Provider (In 60 seconds)

    Stop scribbling on scrap paper. Here is the exact system I use to hold insurance companies accountable (and keep track of what has been said).

    In my last post, I talked about the importance of documenting every single interaction with your insurance company. But let’s be honest: when you are managing a chronic illness, working, or just living life, finding a notebook and a working pen while on hold is just one more hurdle.

    My husband and I realized early on that we needed a system that was fast, shared, and impossible to lose.

    Our solution? A simple Google Form.

    It lives as an icon on our phone home screens. When we get on a call, we tap it, fill in the blanks while we talk, and hit submit. It automatically saves everything into a spreadsheet that we can search later.

    Why This Works Better Than a Notebook

    1. It Prompts You: You never forget to ask “Who am I speaking with?” because the form requires you to type it in.
    2. It’s Collaborative: If my husband takes a call, I can see the notes instantly on my computer. No more “Did you call them?” arguments.
    3. It Creates a Timeline: When you need to file a grievance (like I did), you just open the spreadsheet and copy-paste the entire history.

    The Fields You Need (Steal My Form)

    I created a free Google Form with these specific questions. You can copy this exact structure:

    • Patient calling about: (Checkbox: … Names of those in the household, etc.)
    • Date called: (Date picker)
    • Who contacted? (Checkboxes: Benefits, Care Management, CVS Caremark, HR, etc.)
    • Method of contact: (Checkboxes: Phone, Email, Secure Message)
    • Did I record the call? (Yes/No – Check your local laws as many areas require you to ask permission to record.)
      • My Script: “I need to record this call so I have a record of what to do next. Do I have your permission to record?” Note. Be sure to note this to any new call participants.
      • Note: If they say “No,” I immediately ask: “Since you are recording this for quality assurance, can I request a copy of that recording for my records?” (This usually changes the tone of the conversation!)
    • Name of representative: (Crucial! Always ask for this first)
    • Reason for call: (e.g., Prior Authorization, Billing Error, Benefits Question)
    • Summary of call: (What did they say? What did you say?)
    • How long were you on the call? (This is important evidence for complaints)
    • Action items: (What did the representative promise to do? What do you need to do?)
    • Follow-up date: (When should you check back?)
    Header for your form.
    Settings for the form. Some are personal, but this let’s me and Josh know who entered the data.
    I have the email addresses required by default and the same for questions. (You can set some as not required.)

    How to Set It Up

    1. Go to forms.google.com and click “Blank Form.”
    2. Add the questions listed above.
    3. Click “Send,” copy the link, and email it to yourself and your spouse/caregiver.
    4. Pro Tip: Open the link on your phone, tap “Share” (iOS) or the menu dots (Android), and select “Add to Home Screen.” Now it looks and acts just like an app.

    The Result

    When my pharmacy billing nightmare happened, I didn’t have to rely on my foggy memory. I opened my spreadsheet and saw exactly who disconnected on me on January 29th, and exactly what “Curtis” told me on February 6th.

    That data wasn’t just notes; it was evidence. And evidence is the only thing that wins insurance appeals.

    Disclaimer: I am a Speech-Language Pathologist and person with chronic illness, not an insurance broker or attorney. This post shares my personal experience and is not intended as legal or financial advice.

    Access and advocacy, communication log, health insurance

    Evidence-Based Practices: Quick Overview

    Note. This is an updated version of an article I wrote in 2021 for Apraxia Kids. The main reference was to childhood apraxia of speech research, but this applies to research across the sciences.

    Some current (2025) actions by the executive branch make information of utmost importance. Some changes threaten sources of independent research funding.


    What is evidence-based practice?

    You may have heard speech-language pathologists (SLPs) saying “evidence-based practices” when describing a specific treatment approach. Such practices are based on scientific evidence and professional experience while considering your child’s specific needs.

    Scientific evidence is used by SLPs, educators, and medical professionals (among others) to guide interventions and strategies could help a person based on their specific needs. 

    There is not one approach that works for all people, especially not for all children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS).  There are some approaches that have not been studied at all or have been studied with research methods that don’t allow for very strong conclusions.

    What is scientific evidence?

    Scientific evidence is empirical data that is collected and interpreted using the scientific method.  This is evidence that serves to support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis and is derived from controlled studies.

    Is all scientific evidence high quality?

    Simply put, no.

    Well-designed research studies are more valuable tools than an anecdotal opinion.

    What are the levels of evidence?

    Additional information about evidence-based interventions as defined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) from the California Department of Education.

    Let’s summarize…

    • The lowest form of evidence = opinions based on “experience”
    • Best form of evidence = pulling multiple randomized controlled trials into guidelines or a meta-analysis

    Anecdotes are not evidence especially when these anecdotes are offered by (or on websites of) people/companies with a commercial interest.

    Note. Researchers/organizations obtain grant funding by applying. Even then, there is a review process to determine whether they receive the funding.

    Applications are peer reviewed by field experts who determine whether the application meets the criteria among other standards.
    Why does commercial interest matter in speech-language pathology or education?

    What is a commercial interest? Earning money by selling a product OR saving money by not providing a service. (The latter is more relevant to health insurance – at least for now.)

    Example: Dr. Blah at company XYZ creates and markets a program to teach math. If it is sold to school districts, then they will make money. Now if XYZ and Dr. Blah are the only ones who research the program they are more likely to determine this “works”.

    What can decrease the quality of evidence?

    Specific to CAS treatment research studies, look for study limitations (e.g., small sample size, inconsistent implementation of treatment approach, lack of a control group or condition, pre-treatment differences between groups, analysis performed by non-blinded outcome assessors, etc.).

    Do we have much of the Level 1 standard research for Childhood Apraxia of Speech treatment?

    No. We have a few meta-analysis studies and systematic reviews available.

    Here are some systematic research reviews (most summaries by the American Speech Language Hearing Association in their Evidence Maps):

    SLPs can look at the “evidence” to determine which approaches are most likely to work. The evidence includes the research available and the patient’s unique needs.

    What characterizes a strong treatment research study?

    The gold standard for a therapy approach study is a randomized controlled trial and/or meta-analysis

    To evaluate a study, we look at the sample size, randomization, consistency of analysis, and fidelity.

    • Sample size:
      • How many participants/observations?
      • Diversity in the population? (i.e., Gender? Race? Ethnicity? Primary language? Age – depending? Diagnoses? Socioeconomic status (SES)? Geographic location? Gender identify and expression? Disability status?)
    Why do we care about diversity in the sample ?

    Simply put: Inclusivity matters. The linked 2023 article by Alice McCarthy details the need for inclusive clinical trials.

    Yes, we’re dealing with speech-language therapy trials vs. drug trials; but, that doesn’t change the need to ensure a representative population. This might advise a research of possible barriers to care as well as how to address the barriers.

    I will address more about the need to ensure inclusivity in research and health disparities. For now, please review this article by Megan A. Morris (2022), Striving Toward Equity in Health Care for People with Communication Disabilities. You can also review disparities associated with health insurance on my blog.

    • Randomization: There are many types of randomization as described in the article linked (Lim & In, 2019). Randomization helps researchers eliminate/minimize accidental bias (including selection bias).
      • e.g., We want to ensure that patients weren’t chosen to receive the “treatment” group merely because they seemed to have more or less speech sound errors.
    Bias in research

    Bias in research is beyond the scope of this article. If you’d like to learn more, here is one journal article by Pannucci and Wilkins (2010).

    • Consistency: This is often used interchangeably with reliability.
      • Internal consistency indicates that several items measuring the same idea generate similar responses.
      • External consistency is the degree to which results are consistent with prior research.
      • Specific to consistency of analysis, we want to know how reliable were measures of patient performance. What was the level of agreement between/among therapists? How about a novel therapist?
    • Fidelity:
      • Were the control and treatment interventions provided as intended? For example, did the SLPs administering the interventions stay within the guidelines provided by the research study? Did they introduce any concepts not included in the study?
      • Was the same modality of treatment used across patients in each condition? (in-person, telehealth, etc.)
    Example.

    (1) SLP working with a child in the “control” group includes some of the techniques from the “treatment” being tested and child shows progress in the “control” intervention.

    Does this mean the “control” intervention works? No. It means the SLP did not follow the research protocol in the “control” intervention.

    (2) SLP working with a child in the “treatment” group includes techniques beyond those described by the researchers as part of the treatment program (e.g., visual aids, cues, etc.) and the child shows progress with the “treatment” intervention.

    Does this mean the “treatment” intervention works? No. It means the SLP did not follow the research protocol in the “treatment” intervention.

    Other important factors

    We also need to consider the presence of other factors that could explain improvement or regression (including whether these were controlled in the study). and whether these are controlled (e.g., if a child also received treatment elsewhere, or if a child started school, or had a medical procedure).

    • Was the child receiving treatment beyond that supplied in the study?
    • Did the child start school while in the study?
    • Did the child experience any medical changes during the study? (e.g., new medication, surgical procedure, new diagnoses, accident, etc.)

    Maturation (i.e., getting older) is another factor to consider when reviewing treatment studies. That is, did the treatment group improve beyond what would be expected based with aging.

    What if one approach with research support isn’t working for my child?

    Well, if you have that concern, ask the practitioner. Practitioners usually track progress so they know when they need to adjust intervention (i.e., when the approach is not effective for the patient or when the patient masters an objective, etc.).

    As a clinician, I ask myself these questions when an approach doesn’t seem to be “working”?

    • How long have we tried the approach?
    • Am I implementing the approach correctly? (It helps to review the approach.)
    • Is the child engaged (i.e., attending) with us during our sessions?
    • How consistent is the child’s attendance?
    • Have we provided appropriate family education (if included) with the approach? (This includes home practice)

    Sometimes an approach just isn’t the best option for a child (and their family) and we need to adapt. This could include modifying the approach slightly to adapt or even changing approaches to one more suited for the child.

    Regardless, an approach should have an evidence base, even if it was only demonstrated in a “single-subject design case study”. This allows SLPs to generate ideas/hypotheses (sophisticated educated guesses) about what might work for a given child.


    Disclaimer. Information provided in this post by, Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is provided in good faith. Nixon Speech and Language, LLC makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information.

    Information provided here is for informational purposes only.

    This material is not substitute for professional medical advice or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified professional with any questions you may have regarding conditions and treatments/therapies. Do not delay seeking professional medical or educational advice/evaluation or delay seeking it because of something you read on this website.


    See these websites for more information about evidence-based practices and research:


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Access and advocacy, childhood apraxia of speech, Dyslexia, education, Independent Funding, Institute of Education Sciences, National Institutes of Health, research, research design, Research Funding, speech-language pathology, Systematic Research

    Barriers for Dyslexics (1993)

    In honor of Dyslexia Awareness Month, here is a 1993 article, Dyslexics Overcome Barriers, that I wrote for my high school newspaper.

    I interviewed some of the students at school who had dyslexia as well as some of the teachers who were trained in Alphabetic Phonics (an Orton Gillingham based program) and worked with the dyslexic students.

    Dyslexics can provide so much insight into their challenges as well as ways to support them, but so often it seems they aren’t asked for their insight. I’ll go over this more in a future blog, but for now, just consider what these students said in 1993.

    Article written by Dr. Nixon March 12, 1993 from the West Brook Times high school newspaper entitled "Dyslexics overcome barriers"

    Disclaimer. This article is from 1993. The knowledge base about dyslexia has expanded much since that time. This post is only to provide historical insight not diagnose or treat.

    Access and advocacy, Dyslexia, Dyslexia Awareness Month, education