confidential investigations by the grand jury and facilitates the development of an adequate factual record. See id. Moreover, the difficulty in determining whether a particular order is separable and collateral to a grand jury investigation is well recognized. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 190 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir.1999) (explaining that the determination of whether a particular order is collateral “might well place [an appellate court] at the very heart of the grand jury’s investigation”). Finally, in the privilege arena, and outside the grand jury context, this Court has maintained a uniform approach to the collateral order doctrine, categorically allowing interlocutory appellate review of privilege matters. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243, 251 (Pa.2011) (<HOLDING>). As reflected in Twenty-Fourth Statewide
holding forced medication orders are immediately appealable holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders holding that disclosure orders adverse to the attorneyclient privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291