Fien De Waele Tongeren, Belgium 1H AGO

When medical care, psychosocial support, and administrative follow-up are spread across services, emails, documents, and people over many years, there can be plenty of information but very little overview. A new provider sees snapshots, old decisions hide in email threads, and referrals resurface months later. Reconstructing the full story from memory every time requires almost a second brain. So I built a living chronological timeline. I did not want a summary of what my situation was “more or less.” I wanted: `date → event → action taken` For example: `14 March 2026 — Symptoms discussed with service X — Service refers me to Y; appointment requested.` This shows not only what happened, but what followed. My timeline runs from 2009 to the present and is divided into five documents covering meaningful periods. A new document begins when a new phase in life or support begins. Older periods stay stable, while almost all active maintenance happens in the latest document. I reopen historical files mainly when a missing record resurfaces. Step-by-step: 1. I collect existing traces, including emails, appointments, referrals, medical or administrative documents, formal decisions, and earlier notes. A sent email is often only half an event, so I also search for replies and follow-up. 2. I search by trajectory rather than by one name. I use names, spelling variants, organisations, domains, senders, recipients, subject words, and attachment terms. 3. I read the full conversation. A search result is not yet a timeline item, so I establish what happened, when it happened, who was involved, and what action or response followed. 4. I separate evidence levels. I distinguish between my own report at the time, a response or confirmation, an official decision or document, and an event that seems real but still lacks confirming evidence. I do not replace a missing document with an assumption; the absence itself becomes part of the record. 5. I track people and organisations separately. “Contact with organisation X” can hide that different people suggested, revisited, or formally communicated different things. 6. Before adding a new event, I compare it with the existing timeline. It may add information by filling a gap, replace an incomplete entry, clarify an existing event, or mark a missing record while preserving uncertainty. This prevents duplicate versions of the same event. 7. For substantial historical work, I first create a temporary review document using `date — event — action taken`. It can contain open issues, missing documents, and uncertainties. Only after review do I update the main timeline. For ordinary new events, I skip this step when the source and date are clear. 8. I make uncertainty visible by grouping research notes into “Clearly found,” “Possible identity confusion,” and “Not found or insufficiently documented.” 9. I maintain the living timeline using the structure `year → month → chronological events`. Older information is preserved, duplicates are merged, uncertainties stay visible, and open trajectories remain open. In practice, the five documents behave like version control: the first four are mostly archive, while the fifth is alive. 10. I reuse the timeline for thematic analysis. Chronology is the factual foundation, but events can also be regrouped to reveal patterns in functioning, work capacity, transport, medical developments, administrative burden, communication needs, and realistic conditions for participation. Two workflows emerged: - Historical reconstruction: collect sources → reconstruct trajectory → determine evidence status → review → update the correct historical period - Ongoing follow-up: new event → verify source → record date and action → add to the active document Most records are organised around institutions. A GP sees one part, a psychologist another, and an agency only its own procedure. Emails are chronological within a mailbox, but not across a life. A personal timeline turns that model around. The person becomes the organising axis, not the institution. That lets administratively separate events appear next to each other in time, revealing patterns such as repeated referrals, waiting times, administrative burden, or support disappearing when the need for it increases. The workflow in one line is: `Collect sources → reconstruct trajectories → connect events to actions → distinguish evidence status → compare → review → integrate → maintain → analyse thematically.` The result is not a perfect record, but a steadily improving map of what actually happened, with mainly the newest edge continuing to grow while the past stays calmly in place.