Patient-controlled health records AI

OpenKP

This assessment covers OpenKP with a patient-chosen AI client. OpenKP itself is a local record connector, with preview and confirmation workflows. The chosen AI client receives returned records under its own policies. OpenKP and HugoScore share a maintainer, so this is a self-evaluation.

AI-assisted draft Read full report Open directory

Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.

91 /100 toward patient-directed

Agency posture Strongly agency-expanding

The question we ask Who does OpenKP serve in this deployment?

Control OpenKP plus a patient-chosen MCP AI client, for Kaiser Permanente Northern California records. OpenKP itself is a local connector, not a language model. HugoScore and OpenKP share a maintainer, so this remains a disclosed self-evaluation.

Agency read Strongly agency-expanding

Vendor: OpenKP / Hugo Campos
Who it serves: Patient-directed record infrastructure with a separately chosen AI client
Primary User: Technically curious Kaiser Permanente Northern California members and patient advocates
Control Model: Local connector with a separately chosen AI client and that client’s data policies.
Patient Impact: Cross-note comparisons, access-log questions, and retrieving original records enable scrutiny of institutional accounts. The language model provides interpretation, so accuracy and critical capacity must be evaluated for the combined workflow.
Profile Status: AI-assisted draft
Last assessed: Sep 8, 2026
Review Confidence: Medium for architecture, lower for current implementation and usable approval (AI-assisted draft)
AI / Model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
Human Review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.

Summary judgment · 91 out of 100 toward patient-directed

91 applies to OpenKP plus a patient-chosen AI client. Standalone OpenKP has no separate AI score.

Strongly agency-expanding

Patient agency

How this tool changes agency

Expands agency when

Cross-note comparisons, access-log questions, and retrieving original records enable scrutiny of institutional accounts. The language model provides interpretation, so accuracy and critical capacity must be evaluated for the combined workflow.

Limits agency when

Client approval behavior, current source/version parity, external model data handling, portal terms, and accessibility outside technically capable NorCal users.

Patient agency assessment

Who sets and changes the goal?

Patient authority

The patient chooses the substantive questions and AI client, and operates the portal connector. A callable confirmation parameter is a control mechanism, but not proof that every client obtains informed human approval before invoking it.

What can the patient understand, question, or do?

Critical capacity

Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?

Informed control

The website identifies the client data boundary more clearly than the repository's broad local-only statement. A source-available noncommercial license supports personal adaptation without guaranteeing universal use rights or secure operation.

Text findings

Conflict of interest

Self-evaluated: OpenKP and HugoScore share the same maintainer

Hugo Campos maintains both OpenKP and HugoScore, so this profile is a self-evaluation rather than an independent review. It is published with that label, and independent third-party review of OpenKP is invited and outstanding.

Conditions of use

Published controls and their limits

What remains unknown?

Not tested or not established

Client approval behavior, current source/version parity, external model data handling, portal terms, and accessibility outside technically capable NorCal users.

Who evaluated this?

AI-assisted public-source draft

Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.

Sources checked

Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.

Review provenance

Criteria

CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.

Reviewer

AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.

AI / model

OpenAI Codex / GPT-6

Human review

Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.

Review date

2026-09-08

Limitations

Client approval behavior, current source/version parity, external model data handling, portal terms, and accessibility outside technically capable NorCal users. No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.

Review method

Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.

AI-assisted draft · Medium for architecture, lower for current implementation and usable approval (AI-assisted draft)