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 →