Outpatient OPPE

Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation for the outpatient neurology line — continuous, exception-based review of clinician performance rather than a periodic chart-pull scramble.

Placeholder — not yet written

This page is a deliberate stub. It exists so the concept has a home and a link from the demo hub; the content below is a frame for the real write-up, not the write-up itself. Nothing here is wired to an engine, and no figures, metrics, or scoring rules have been decided.

What this is for

The problem shape

OPPE is a standing regulatory obligation, and today it is satisfied by periodic manual chart review — expensive, retrospective, and sampled thinly enough that it rarely changes anyone's practice. The interesting question is whether the same review can run continuously and by exception, surfacing only the cases that actually warrant a human reviewer's attention.

That is the same operating principle already used elsewhere in this demo: the machine does the sweep, a clinician adjudicates the exceptions, and the reviewer's judgment feeds back into the rubric.

Frame

What would need to exist

PieceStatusNote
Case samplingNEWWhich encounters enter review, and on what cadence. Exception-driven, not random-sample.
Review rubricNEWThe dimensions a reviewer scores. Must be defined by clinicians before anything is built against it.
Reviewer surfaceEXTENDA blind-review queue with structured feedback — conceptually adjacent to the audit tooling that already exists.
Inter-rater calibrationNEWOverlapping assignments so reviewer drift is measurable rather than assumed.
Trend reportingNEWPer-clinician and per-cohort movement over time — the actual OPPE deliverable.

Open questions

Needs a decision before this page becomes real
  • What are the scored dimensions, and who signs off on the rubric?
  • What triggers a case into review — a quality signal, a random sample, or a clinician flag?
  • Is the output advisory to the clinician, or does it feed a formal credentialing record? The two imply very different accuracy bars.
  • How does this relate to the FPPE side of the same program — shared surface, or separate?
  • What is the evidence standard for a finding, and what is the appeal path for a contested one?

Deliberately not here

No sample scores, no clinician names, no synthetic performance data. Fabricated numbers on a page like this get quoted back as if they were real, and a performance-evaluation surface is the worst possible place for that to happen. The figures arrive when the rubric does.

Concept placeholder · not a product · not wired to any engine · no PHI. Created 2026-07-24 as a stub to be filled in.