NPI Registry module (need feedback)

I almost finish a new module

It allow npi registry search, it needs result pagination, but i’m working on.

After the pagination is done, probably ‘save in address book’ or ‘save in pharmacy’ should be added as feature.

Is there any tester, or volunteer?

here are the links



Thanks for your time!!

PS: i know… needs better documentation and some screenshot

1 Like

I perused the code and it looked pretty well structured from what I saw. Haven’t had a chance to play with it yet. I’ll give it a go when I free up some time.

1 Like

Can you share the purpose of having the registry in the program? What is the end goal?

@juggernautsei Thank you for your feedback, I’m trying to figure out how asking about the reason can improve the source code.

  • What about I’m a lazy person and I dont wont open another browser tab?

  • What about data consistency? I want data validation on NPI number, license or other fields.

hi @zerai , npi lookup would be handy but most of the other info is out of date or not updated regularly enough to be reliable there.

@zerai, I am not trying to offend your work.
The reason for asking the purpose of the feature. It is to see if it has a broad appeal. Suppose it is a narrow focus that does not have wide adoption across many specialties. Then we are just creating bloat in the EHR. I appreciate that you made it a module, and anyone wanting to use it can install it.
However, knowing the purpose of the module would also help the adoption. Some things are not obvious. Full disclosure helps others decide if they want to adopt the module or not.

I think it’d be useful as a turned on by default module.

I don’t know if you meant it too but this post came off as being rude in my opinion.


I have a negative opinin about this practice ‘default module’,
I dont see any benefit for the final user expecialy in long term

I’m not offended, I think there are some misconception about the module
system. Modules should be indipendent technically and politially.
Asking a feedback about the code is not asking a ‘permission’ or some default integration.

How? modules are indipendent, they should be live in own repository, I don’t see your point

Right!! I loved your ‘marketplace’ initiative. But a maketplace owned by a single vendor is a ‘conflict’ IMHO.

We need that type of space/initiative,

I’m not a rude person, english is not my native language, i use short phrase and i’m very direct,
if someone think is ‘rude’ sorry, gtranslator doesn’t help.

BTW my main concern is about th open source module ecosystem, and sometime i ask myself ‘Why doesn’t it grow?’

Yeah I thought it be something like that so now everybody knows that your intent isn’t being rude and it’s a communication language thing.
We do appreciate your participation and thoughts on our module system.

That is why I stated it was nice that you were producing a module that people can choose to install versus it being included in the codebase.
It should not be included in the codebase and “turned on” by default.

We need to do a better job of displaying the available modules that are being independently managed.
In my opinion, there should be a link in two places for the independently supported modules. One link should be on the “Official Module” page. The second link should be at the bottom of the Modules page in the program.

I hoped I would start the project and the community leaders would pick it up. It turned out to be wishful thinking when other developers did not join in and post their projects. That is what really killed the idea. I think it was too aggressive and too soon in the module history of OEMR. Timing is everything.