Nothing here is clinical advice, and nothing here should touch identifiable patient information.
Use these prompts to produce a consistent administrative letter when a referral cannot move through intake because required material is absent, incomplete or unclear. They are for referral coordinators and clinical administration teams, not for clinical assessment.
Do not paste names, dates of birth, addresses, record numbers, free-text clinical notes or other identifiable patient information into the chat. Replace them with neutral placeholders before you start. The letter should ask for documents or clarification. It should not explain what care a person needs, interpret a result, or make a decision about treatment.
Key point
Keep the decision administrative
State what is missing from the received record and what the approved process requires. Do not turn an intake letter into a clinical or eligibility decision.
Choose the right letter
Start with the referral record and the approved local criteria. The criteria are the source for what must be supplied. The referral record is the source for what was received. Do not use either source to fill gaps in the other.
| If you have this situation | Use this prompt | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| Several ordinary omissions | Standard referrer letter | One concise request to the referrer |
| The patient must provide an administrative item | Patient-facing request letter | Plain-language patient correspondence |
| Approval evidence is absent or cannot be checked | Authorisation outstanding letter | A request for the required approval details |
| A required report or document is not attached | Missing tests or reports letter | A request for the named supporting evidence |
| Records contradict each other | Conflicting record check and letter | An internal issue list and a holding letter |
Use the patient-facing prompt only where your service has agreed that the patient is the right person to contact. If the criteria do not make that clear, use the conflicting-record prompt. It preserves the uncertainty instead of assigning responsibility without evidence.
Watch out
Do not call an attachment missing when the record only shows that you cannot find it
“Not available in the referral record received” is more accurate than saying a referrer did not send it.
Prepare the material before pasting it
- Create an anonymised working extract. Keep only the referral type, non-identifying case reference, received document list, required fields, and the status of each item.
- Copy the relevant part of the approved local process. Include the required document name and any accepted evidence format. Do not paste a whole policy if one short section answers the question.
- Replace personal details with placeholders such as
[date],[referrer role]and[submission route]. - Choose the prompt that matches the gap. Paste the anonymised record and criteria into its labelled sections.
- Read the output against the source documents before you put it into your letter template or referral system.
The model you are using may handle formatting and long pasted material differently across versions. Check the current product guidance in the xAI documentation overview if the material is not retained or the output cuts off.
Check the draft before sending
A good letter is specific enough for the recipient to act without another call, but narrow enough that it does not add unsupported requirements. Check these points in order:
- The recipient is correct: referrer for referral evidence, patient only for an approved patient action.
- Every requested item appears in the local criteria.
- Every statement about what was received matches the referral record.
- The letter names the accepted evidence or route only where the criteria specify it.
- It says review cannot continue, rather than claiming the referral has been clinically rejected.
- The final list has every outstanding item once, with no extra requests hidden in the body.
- It contains no identifiers, clinical interpretation, diagnosis, treatment suggestion or statement about entitlement.
Check
The final list is your control point
Compare each line under “Items required before review can continue” with one source: either the approved criteria or a stated record conflict. If it has neither, remove it.
Treat ambiguity as a task, not a gap to fill
Referral records often contain partial information. A form may say an authorisation exists while no approval reference is attached. A document list may mention a report that is not present. The safe response is to identify the field, state what cannot be confirmed, and request clarification through the normal route.
Do not ask for a test simply because it seems useful. Ask only for evidence listed in the supplied referral criteria. Do not write that a test is inadequate, normal, abnormal or out of date unless the approved process itself gives an administrative validity rule and you can apply that rule without clinical judgement.
Note
Use the local template after drafting
The prompts create the wording and checklist. Apply your organisation's approved letterhead, contact details, accessibility wording and records process outside the chat.
When the prompt does not work
If the output invents a requirement, delete the draft and rerun it with the exact criteria excerpt. If it misses an item, reduce the input to a document list and a simple required-versus-received table. If the record is contradictory, stop using the standard letter and use the conflicting-record prompt instead. Where local policy is absent, unclear or disputed, send the issue to the referral administration lead or policy owner before contacting the patient or referrer.