HI all,
I’m hoping someone can help me understand the logic behind this design choice, as we’re running into a number of issues internally while following the recommendation here: [link].
For context: we book patients directly into our own internal tool, and we’re currently testing RAS.
The part I’m struggling with is the recommendation to cancel a referral once it has been accepted. What’s the reasoning for doing it this way? In the GP’s view the referral then shows as CANCELLED, when in reality it hasn’t been cancelled at all — it has simply moved outside eRS to be processed. I’m not clear on what business impact this could have on the referral downstream.
I’m also unsure whether other systems/tools used by GPs parse and interpret this correctly. How does eRS distinguish between the two cases — (a) a provider genuinely cancelling a referral so that it goes nowhere, versus (b) a referral that has simply moved out of eRS to be processed elsewhere?
Intuitively, a distinct status for case (b) would seem like the safer approach: it leaves no room for misinterpretation. Treating a referral in a CANCELLED state as “not actually cancelled” feels counterintuitive and risky.
Grateful for any insight into the thinking behind this.