Heidi Evidence Library lets eligible users organise their own documents for evidence searches. Adding a local protocol is only the first step: a useful answer must also use the right version, preserve the protocol's scope and identify the passage supporting the conclusion. A document appearing in a library is not proof that a particular answer relied on it.
Begin with an authorised, current document
Heidi's getting-started guide, dated 23 July 2026 and checked on 6 September 2026, describes Sources > My Library for uploading documents and organising collections. Collections can be selected for a search, and team administrators can manage source settings.
Before using that workflow, confirm that the document may be uploaded to the service and that your account has the required access. An internal protocol may have distribution restrictions even when it contains no patient information.
Keep a record of the title, owner, version, approval date and intended setting. Those details are part of the source, not optional decoration. A concise but outdated protocol can be more misleading than a longer document whose limitations are clear.
A fictional protocol makes the checks concrete
Consider an original teaching example from a fictional River Practice. Its administrative referral guide says that routine requests use the current electronic form, that requests need a clearly stated question and that a nominated team checks whether required attachments are present.
A newer version changes the receiving team. The older version remains useful as a historical document, but should not be the default source for a current workflow question.
No real service instructions are being provided here. The example is designed to show how a local document can contain an operational detail that a general clinical reference cannot safely assume.
Name the files so that a reviewer can distinguish current from superseded material. Decide who removes or archives old versions and how users learn that a change has occurred. Those governance decisions are not solved by the upload control itself.
Organise around the question people ask
A collection called "Everything" may be convenient to populate but difficult to maintain. For the fictional practice, a collection containing current referral procedures is easier to inspect than a mixed folder of historical teaching slides, draft policies and operational instructions.
Use a narrow first question: "According to the current River Practice referral guide, which team checks required attachments? Identify the supporting section and document version."
Then ask a question the document cannot answer: "How many days will this patient's referral take?" A satisfactory response should recognise that the supplied guide does not establish an individual waiting time. This is a proposed test, not an observed Heidi output.
Testing the boundary is as important as testing retrieval. A local document may establish a process without establishing current service capacity, eligibility in an unusual case or the outcome of a referral already sent.
Inspect the citation, not just the search activity
The official guide distinguishes retrieved material from sources actually used in the answer. It directs readers towards citations, their previews and the final references rather than treating the initial retrieval list as proof of support.
For the fictional protocol, open the reference attached to the receiving-team statement. Check that it points to the current version and the relevant section. A reference to the same organisation is not enough if it supports a different pathway.
If the response combines a national clinical recommendation with a local administrative process, separate those claims. The national source may explain clinical considerations; the local document may establish how an authorised referral is submitted. Neither automatically supplies the other's information.
When the source is silent, keep the uncertainty in the answer. Ask the responsible service rather than prompting repeatedly until a confident operational detail appears.
Source selection is not the same as blocking a website
The current getting-started guide says there is no exclude-a-domain feature, despite older regional documentation mentioning blacklisting. Do not build a workflow around that older wording without confirming the current interface.
The distinction matters because choosing a collection and excluding every other possible source are not necessarily the same action. Check what settings are actually enabled before describing a response as based only on your local documents.
Similarly, do not assume all controls are available on every device. The current guide identifies mobile limitations, so perform source configuration through a supported interface and verify how the resulting search behaves.
A small acceptance test for the practice
Before colleagues rely on the library, agree a few original test questions with known answers in the current document. Include an outdated detail, an unsupported question and a question requiring two different sections.
A reviewer should record whether the answer identifies the correct source, preserves the intended scope and exposes uncertainty. Record any correction needed and repeat the test when the source changes. This proposed acceptance process has not been run against Heidi for this article.
Keep the test set small enough to repeat after an update, but varied enough to catch obvious source-management mistakes. A successful first demonstration should not become a permanent certification of every future output.
For a managed service, assign ownership of the test and the source collection. Without an owner, old documents can remain available simply because everybody assumes somebody else maintains them.
Local configuration and general clinical learning are complementary
This guide is published by iatroX and includes Ask-iatroX as a separate clinical-reference option. Under iatroX's September 2026 product information, its sources include NICE, CKS, SIGN and SmPC information from emc, with a published retrieval and citation-grounding methodology.
That is not a claim that iatroX automatically knows River Practice's internal referral process or provides the same upload configuration. A local administrative question still requires the current local source.
Where the issue is a wider knowledge gap, iatroX's questions, Tutor and CPD tools can support learning without importing the operational document. Its September 2026 paid package costs £99 annually upfront or £29 monthly and includes simulations and CPD rather than charging separate add-ons.
Use a maintained local library for local process questions. Use an appropriate clinical reference for general evidence, and structured practice for learning. The combination is strongest when each source's authority and limitations remain visible.
Frequently asked questions
Where is Heidi Evidence Library accessed?
The official guide checked on 6 September 2026 directs users to Sources > My Library. Availability and managed settings depend on the account and supported interface.
Does a retrieved source prove it supported the answer?
No. Inspect the citation attached to the claim and the relevant source passage rather than relying only on a retrieval list.
Can a local protocol establish a current waiting time?
Only if it actually contains current, applicable information about that question. Do not infer an individual service outcome from a general process document.