Stream: implementers
Topic: US Practitioner License Number
nicola (RIO/SS) (Sep 28 2017 at 16:39):
Hello, where to put US Practitioner License Number?
Practitioner.qualification?
tax id?
What is a system uri for DEA number?
Grahame Grieve (Oct 03 2017 at 01:56):
DEA number is on the todo list. We've been waiting for someone to clarify some technical details about how DEA numbers work
Grahame Grieve (Oct 03 2017 at 01:57):
mostly PLN goes in Practioner(Role).identifier
Brian Postlethwaite (Oct 03 2017 at 03:48):
Is it dependant on the role/location? or just allocated to the practitioner (independant of any org/location)
Paul Knapp (Feb 26 2018 at 13:30):
It is assigned to the individual independent of where they are working - and typically per state in which they are licenced - so if they work as an OBGYN in Virginia, DC and another adjoining state they would have 3 licences for that specialty. An individual will have one typically for each certification per state in which they practise so locating adjacent to/ associated with qualifications makes sense - as opposed to the NPI (National Provider Number) which is a national identifier for the practitioner which is separate for the state based licenses described above.
Eric Haas (Feb 26 2018 at 16:40):
What do we need to know about the DEA - maybe Rob and I can help since we each have them ( though mine is expired :-/) @Rob Hausam
Rob Hausam (Feb 27 2018 at 06:11):
Yes, happy to help with this, however I can. Mine is still current.
Ivan Grishaev (Mar 19 2018 at 16:41):
Hi Brian and all the others who has been involved in this thread,
I'm working on converting the official US NPI registry into FHIR. I've got some NPI fields which I don't know were to put. These are:
- Provider Identifier State
- Provider Identifier Type Code
- Provider Identifier Issuer
- License Number State Code
Currently, I'm choosing between adding an extension to an Identifier entity or just using CodableConept for that. The examples are:
:identifier
[{:value "1553",
:extension
{:url "https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/",
:extension
[{:url "other_provider_identifier_state", :valueString "NE"}
{:url "other_provider_identifier_type_code", :valueString "OTHER"}
{:url "other_provider_identifier_issuer", :valueString "BCBS"}]}}
VS
:identifier
[{:value "1553",
:type
{:coding
[{:system "other_provider_identifier_state", :code "NE"}
{:system "other_provider_identifier_type_code", :code "OTHER"}
{:system "other_provider_identifier_issuer", :code "BCBS"}]}}
My question is, which variant would be better to prefer? To use extensions or to put more data into the type field?
Any feedback from you would help us a lot.
Thank you,
Ivan.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 19 2018 at 18:09):
@Brian Postlethwaite
Paul Knapp (Mar 19 2018 at 18:51):
@Ivan Grishaev I think you need to think about this a little differently. The 'Provider Identifier State' I expect would be Organization.address.state of the Organization resource which as the .identifier for the 'Provider Identifier' or whatever it is the identifier of/for (license # whatever) which appears in the Practitioner.identifer.system and the 'License Number State Code' is the Organization.address.state of the Organization for the body which issues the licence numbers for that type of practitioner and state as references as the licence number issuer in the Practitioner or PractitionerRole, etc.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 19 2018 at 21:49):
Address and jurisdiction aren't quite the same thing. The NamingSystem associated with an Identifier.system allows looking up the jurisdiction associated with a particular identifier, but we don't have a mechanism to communicate that inside the instance as part of core. It would need to be sent as an extension I think.
Paul Knapp (Mar 20 2018 at 06:42):
Yes agreed, but it is a property of the Organization not a property of the issued identifier. (Typically you would have another file/table with a the identifiers of authorized issuers and the attributes needed to use them such as the types of identifiers they issue, duration if relevant, for what jurisdiction etc.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 20 2018 at 14:49):
The scope of an identifier is a property of the identifier. It's certainly possible (though not common) for a single organization to be responsible for identifiers for different jurisdictions
Paul Knapp (Mar 22 2018 at 13:07):
Sure and you would specify that where?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 22 2018 at 15:18):
The characteristics of the identifier namespace are described using NamingSystem
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 22 2018 at 15:20):
NamingSystem.jurisdiction would allow you to assert that something is a "New South Wales" driver's license or a "British Columbia" nursing license. That's not a safe inference to make from looking at the mailing address of the responsible organization.
Paul Knapp (Mar 25 2018 at 09:41):
Agreed, and NamingSystem.jurisdiction would fit the bill.
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 26 2018 at 03:58):
@Brett Marquard are these identifiers in the scope of the US Core IG?
Brett Marquard (Mar 26 2018 at 15:02):
Thanks Brian and Ivan. In US Core, these would be additional identifiers.
Ivan Grishaev (Apr 03 2018 at 13:41):
Hi @Brian Postlethwaite , @Brett Marquard ,
this is Ivan, a developer from Health Samurai. I'm working on converting US NPI registry into FHIR. Could you please check the following output format using these URLs:
a single practitioner:
https://npi.health-samurai.io/practitioner/1982607917
practitioner search:
https://npi.health-samurai.io/practitioner?q=david
The most important thing for us was to decide on how to store licence numbers and their states. Briefly, they are stored across identifier and qualification.identifier fields.
It would we great if you looked through those URLs mentioned above and gave any feedback on the structure.
Thank you,
Ivan.
Brett Marquard (Apr 20 2018 at 13:38):
Sorry for slow response Ivan -- is that NUCC code in qualification.code? if so, i would use http://nucc.org/provider-taxonomy
Brett Marquard (Apr 20 2018 at 13:38):
In terms of the state identifiers, I would push Patient Administration or vocabulary at HL7 to give you guidance. Your URL seems logical, but doesn't matter unless it's registered/accepted by others
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
