Latest

NPD weekly · community input

Standardizing HealthcareService data from payers

The NPD weekly raised that payers (and the integrators who serve them) ship FHIR HealthcareService resources very differently — the categories don't line up, the must-support fields are half-populated, and the identifier system is whatever the team chose three releases ago. AINPI volunteered to analyse the gap and propose a recommendation.

This survey is the input layer. Tell us what your team publishes today and what you wish was standardized. Anonymous responses are welcome; include an email only if you want a follow-up conversation.

NDH STU1 · HealthcareService profile →

Reference for must-support fields below. (NDH IG v1.0.0 — STU1.)

NDH STU1 · HealthcareServiceCategoryVS →

The 15 codes the form asks about.

Tracking the STU2 CI build for upcoming changes; survey responses inform the STU1 → STU2 transition.

Who you are

Optional unless you want a follow-up. We never publish anything tied to your identity.

HealthcareServiceCategoryVS — what you publish today

Check every category your team publishes a HealthcareService resource for.

Which categories cause the most rework?

Same 15 codes — flag the ones where you constantly fight upstream data quality, ambiguous mapping, or downstream consumer complaints.

NDH must-support — what you actually populate

The NDH HealthcareService profile flags these as must-support. Check every one you reliably populate today.

Profile, identifier system, cadence

Upstream sources you ingest for HealthcareService data

Check every source you currently consume to populate this resource.

What hurts + what you'd standardize

View running aggregate →