Directory Verification Standard for Canadian Healthcare and Professional Services

Verification is a claim about evidence

A directory entry may combine facts from an official regulator, a provider's website, a direct confirmation and the directory's own observations. Those sources do not carry the same authority. Presenting all of them under a single verified badge makes the record look simpler while obscuring what a user actually needs to know.

The standard begins at field level. Professional status, business address, accepting-new-clients status, languages, service categories, pricing and availability should each retain a source, review date and evidence state. The public interface can summarize this cleanly, but the underlying record should preserve the distinction.

A verification state should answer three questions: what was checked, against which source, and when?

Use an evidence hierarchy

For regulated status, start with the relevant official registry. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC says its directory can verify whether an individual is currently licensed and that its data is pushed dynamically from the College registry. The Law Society of BC's directory provides current practice status and may show restrictions, discipline history or proceedings. These sources support specific facts; they do not guarantee suitability, availability or service quality.

Provider-confirmed information can support operational facts that a regulator may not maintain, such as current intake channels or accessibility details. Public websites can corroborate narrower facts but should not silently replace direct confirmation. User-submitted changes remain pending until reviewed.

• Official source checked: status or credential matched to the relevant public authority.
• Provider confirmed: an authorized representative confirmed the operational detail and date.
• Public source reviewed: a named first-party source supports the field, but no direct confirmation occurred.
• User submitted: the information is awaiting evidence review and should not be published as verified.
• Stale or conflicting: the review window expired or sources disagree; suppress or clearly flag the affected field.

Set review windows by consequence and volatility

Not every field needs the same cadence. Professional status and restrictions are consequential; availability and intake details can change quickly; an office accessibility feature may need direct confirmation; a general biography may change less often. Review windows should reflect both the harm of being wrong and the likelihood of change.

A stale record should not quietly keep its original badge. The system should lower its state, prompt a new review or suppress the uncertain field. Where a primary source provides dynamic data, the directory should still record when it last checked and respect any restrictions on reuse or commercial use.

Keep ranking and commercial influence legible

Verification and promotion must remain separable. A paid relationship cannot upgrade evidence, and a verified professional should not be described as recommended unless the directory has a defensible, disclosed basis for that additional judgment. Sponsored position, referral arrangements and paid visibility should be labelled before the user commits to contact.

The same rule applies on mobile, in search results and inside comparison tools. A disclosure that disappears at the decisive moment is not an effective control. The record should also provide a direct correction route for the provider and for the public, with material safety issues escalated rather than placed in a general inbox.

Minimize sensitive intake and preserve an audit trail

Healthcare and professional-service searches can reveal sensitive circumstances. Collect only the information needed for the disclosed handoff, name the intended recipient and avoid inviting detailed diagnoses, legal narratives or financial information when a basic contact request is enough. Consent, retention and deletion should be designed with the same care as the listing itself.

Internally, preserve the source URL, source type, reviewer, review time, fields checked, conflicts, outcome and next review date. The downloadable record sheet includes these controls along with a publication decision and correction log. It is deliberately a worksheet, because verification is an operating process rather than a decorative badge.