docs(data-integration): use valid, unassigned NPIs in every example - #67
Closed
akim1995 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
docs(data-integration): use valid, unassigned NPIs in every example#67akim1995 wants to merge 1 commit into
akim1995 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
1407006835 fails the NPI check digit and appeared 24 times as the canonical practitioner. 1932108107 is a currently enumerated Michigan provider, shipped in two templates under a fake name. The two feeds also used the same two numbers for opposite roles: 1234567893 was the organization NPI throughout the USCDI feed and the individual provider on the Provider Directory page. One number per role now, and the practitioner is the same person in both feeds.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR 2 of 3 from the section review. Two of the example NPIs were unusable and the two feeds disagreed about what they meant.
1407006835is not a well-formed NPI. Its check digit should be 6. It appeared 24 times across 16 files as the canonical practitioner, so every example built on it would fail the NPI identifier invariants US Core validates.1932108107is a real provider — an enumerated individual in Michigan — shipped inpractitioners.csvandcare_team.csvunder the invented name "Fox, Dana".There is a trap here worth recording: correcting
1407006835's check digit yields1407006836, which is also a real enumerated provider, in Texas. A valid NPI is not a safe one. Every replacement below was checked against NPPES and is unassigned.The two feeds also used the same numbers for opposite roles.
1234567893was the organization NPI throughout the USCDI feed and the individual provider on the Provider Directory page;1407006835was the reverse. One number per role now:199999999218888888841234567893(unchanged)1666666668The practitioner is deliberately the same number in both feeds, since an NPI identifies the same person whether or not they are contracted — which is the one identifier the two feeds should share.
Verified after the change: every NPI in the section passes the check-digit algorithm and returns no NPPES result.