Through methods ranging from manual approval to a professional registry check to federated identity, matched to how sensitive the content being protected actually is — there is no single universal method, and the right one depends on your requirements and what your team can operationally sustain.
A team member reviews and approves each request, often checking a submitted registration number or professional credential. Slower and more resource-intensive, but works when no automated registry is accessible or when volume is low.
Where your organisation has access to a professional registry, a real-time or near-real-time check against it is faster and more reliable, though the availability and quality of registries varies significantly by country.
Where a trusted third-party identity provider already verifies professional status — some markets have this — connecting to it avoids duplicating verification work. See HCP authentication for how we match the method to your specific situation.
Registry-based or federated identity verification is fastest for the clinician, since it checks credentials automatically against a database your organisation already trusts. Manual approval, where a team reviews submitted credentials by hand, is the slowest method but sometimes the only option in markets without an accessible registry or federated system.
No, we do not supply registry data ourselves. We build the verification flow to integrate with a registry or federated identity system your organisation already has access to, handling the technical connection and user experience around it, but the underlying credential data always comes from your existing source.
In the markets where it operates, DocCheck is a relevant and often expected verification option for healthcare professional audiences, particularly across parts of Europe. See what is DocCheck for how that specific service works and where it fits alongside registry-based or manual approval methods in a broader verification strategy.
A failed verification should route to a clear fallback rather than a dead end, typically a manual review request or a message explaining what credential detail was missing. Treating failure as a routine branch in the flow, not an error state, keeps genuine clinicians from being blocked by a mismatch in submitted details.
Tell us your content sensitivity and available registries and we will tell you what method actually fits.