Future provider network

Provider Verification Policy

A provider appearing on a page is not enough to call that provider verified. This policy defines the minimum checks required before DesperateMinds uses that label.

i

Current status

DesperateMinds does not currently operate a public verified-provider directory. No provider should be interpreted as “DesperateMinds verified” unless a future profile explicitly shows a completed verification status and date.

What a future verification check should include

  • provider name and professional role;
  • credential and education information where relevant to the role;
  • active professional licence checked against the appropriate official board or regulator when licensure applies;
  • licence jurisdiction, status and verification date;
  • NPI as a supplemental identity cross-check for U.S. healthcare providers when relevant;
  • telehealth or service geography when the provider makes geographic availability claims;
  • specialties, populations, modalities and other profile claims supported by provider-supplied or verifiable information;
  • current availability, insurance and pricing only when there is a way to keep those details fresh and qualified.

An NPI is not proof of licensure

For U.S. providers, the National Provider Identifier can help match identity and public provider data, but it is not a licence verification. CMS explicitly notes that issuance of an NPI does not ensure that a provider is licensed or credentialed. We therefore treat NPPES data as one cross-check, not the final credential decision.

Freshness and reverification

A verified profile should show when key information was last confirmed. Licence status, availability, insurance participation, telehealth jurisdictions and practice details can change. A future directory must have a reverification process and a way to suspend or qualify stale claims.

Scope, specialties and geography

Verification confirms the fields actually checked. It does not mean DesperateMinds guarantees clinical outcomes, fit or universal competence. A provider should not be presented as eligible for a population, service or jurisdiction that was not verified.

Corrections, complaints and removal

Providers and readers must have a way to report stale or inaccurate profile information. Material credential concerns should trigger a recheck before the profile continues to carry a verified label. Removal or correction requests do not buy a higher organic position.

Assessment data and provider handoff

Raw assessment answers and inferred conditions are not shared with future providers by default. Any future handoff must use minimum necessary information and clear user consent. Provider verification is not permission to transfer private assessment data.

Questions or concerns? If a page appears to conflict with this policy, tell us. A policy is useful only if the implementation can be checked against it.

Related trust policies

How the pieces fit together

Editorial policy

How topics are chosen, researched, written, attributed, updated and kept independent from commercial pressure.

Evidence standards

Which sources can support factual, psychological and health claims, and how uncertainty is handled.

Clinical review policy

What must happen before clinical content or screening routes can claim qualified clinical review or become acquisition pages.

Corrections policy

How readers can report errors and how substantive factual corrections are documented.

AI use policy

Where AI may assist the platform, what it cannot replace, and how source verification and accountability work.

Provider ranking & sponsorship

How future provider ordering, referrals, paid relationships and sponsorship must remain transparent.

Accessibility statement

Our accessibility target, current testing status, known limits and how to report an access barrier.