Eliminating Double Data Entry: How VMS & ATS Integrations Close the Credentialing Loop

Introduction

Healthcare staffing teams often run the same race twice: once in the staffing firm's ATS (Applicant Tracking System) and again in the hospital's VMS (Vendor Management System). The result is double data entry, mismatched records, slower starts, and more compliance stress than anyone ordered. A VMS is commonly defined as an internet-enabled application used to manage and procure staffing services through third-party suppliers and contingent labor (Staffing Industry Analysts, n.d.). An ATS is a hiring workflow tool that helps organize the pre-hire lifecycle, from sourcing and screening to offers (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2024).

Credentialing is the gating function that makes this problem uniquely high-stakes in healthcare. NAMSS defines credentialing as obtaining, verifying, and assessing practitioner qualifications for patient-care services and notes it may be performed by hospitals, health plans, telemedicine, ambulatory organizations, staffing companies, and locum tenens companies (NAMSS, 2023).

This paper explains, in plain language, how VMS and ATS integrations can "close the credentialing loop" so identity, requirements, evidence, status, and expirations move between systems automatically. The goal is not just fewer keystrokes. It is faster, more reliable starts and clearer auditability with practical privacy and security controls aligned to HIPAA and vendor assurance (SOC 2) (45 C.F.R. § 164.312, 2026; AICPA, 2023).

The Problem

Double data entry shows up when the VMS and ATS each need the same "truth," but neither can reliably reuse the other's data. Common pain points include retyping candidate identifiers, recreating facility requirement checklists, uploading the same documents twice, and reconciling mismatched "cleared to start" statuses.

Many organizations tolerate this because manual double entry is widely viewed as an accuracy safeguard in other domains. Peer-reviewed research describes double entry as a common technique to prevent and catch data-entry errors, compared with single entry plus visual checking (Barchard & Pace, 2011). Other healthcare data-capture research compares manual transcription to electronic import and measures error rates across fields, highlighting how manual workflows can introduce avoidable discrepancies (Weatherall et al., 2013).

In healthcare staffing, the downside is that "accuracy by duplication" costs time and money, and it still fails when records drift out of sync. The business impact is delayed starts, extra labor, inconsistent compliance reporting, and higher operational risk.

VMS, ATS, and Credentialing Workflows Without the Jargon

Think of the VMS as the hospital's demand-side control tower. It manages requisitions, supplier submissions, assignment lifecycle, and program reporting across staffing suppliers (Staffing Industry Analysts, n.d.). Think of the ATS as the staffing firm's supply-side pipeline manager, organizing candidates, steps, documents, and onboarding tasks (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2024).

Credentialing is the safety and compliance gate between "selected" and "allowed to work." NAMSS emphasizes credentialing as verifying and assessing qualifications for patient-care services, including staffing and locum tenens contexts (NAMSS, 2023). In practice, credentialing often requires checking authoritative sources and documenting evidence:

• Nurse license verification is commonly done via Nursys, which NCSBN describes as the only national database for nurse license verification, discipline information, and practice privileges in participating jurisdictions (NCSBN, n.d.).
• Adverse action and malpractice-related information is often checked via NPDB querying, which defines a query as a search for information on a practitioner or organization (NPDB, n.d.).
• Exclusion screening is critical because OIG states that hiring an individual or entity on the LEIE may subject organizations to civil monetary penalties and recommends routine checks (OIG, n.d.).

A "closed loop" means the VMS and ATS share one consistent view of: who the clinician is, what the facility requires, what evidence exists, what has been verified, and what is about to expire.

Integration Approaches

Compare the main integration options:

Security and Privacy Highlights

If credentialing data includes PHI, HIPAA applies. Even when it is not strictly PHI, it is still sensitive and must be protected. The HIPAA Security Rule technical safeguards require covered entities and business associates to implement controls such as access control, audit controls, integrity protections, authentication, and transmission security (45 C.F.R. § 164.312, 2026). HHS also summarizes technical safeguards as the technology and policies that protect ePHI and control access (HHS, n.d.).

Two practical rules matter most for integrations:

1. Limit what you share. HIPAA's "minimum necessary" standard requires limiting uses and disclosures of PHI to what is needed for the purpose, which should translate into tight field-level scoping in your integration mappings (45 C.F.R. § 164.514, 2026; HHS, n.d.).
2. Log what happens. If a regulator, auditor, or client asks "who changed this credential status and why," you need audit logs that include timestamps, users or service accounts, and before/after values. This aligns with HIPAA audit control expectations (45 C.F.R. § 164.312, 2026).

SOC 2 is often used to evaluate vendor controls. AICPA describes a SOC 2 examination as a report on controls at a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy (AICPA, 2023). In plain terms: SOC 2 helps you ask, "Can this vendor prove they protect our data and run reliably?"

Measurable Benefits with KPIs

Research on data capture shows why automation matters: manual entry can introduce measurable error rates, and comparisons of manual transcription versus electronic import demonstrate differences in accuracy across fields (Weatherall et al., 2013). In other settings, double entry is treated as a "gold standard" for accuracy but is laborious, reinforcing the business case for automation that preserves integrity without duplicating work (Paulsen et al., 2012).

In staffing operations, organizations commonly target improvements like:

• Faster starts (shorter time-to-credentialed)
• Less rework (fewer missing items and fewer "status ping-pong" emails)
• Lower labor cost (fewer minutes spent rekeying and reconciling)
• More reliable compliance visibility (especially expirations and exclusions)

Example KPI Targets

For labor-cost assumptions, BLS reports median annual wages (May 2024) of $72,910 for human resources specialists and $50,250 for medical records specialists, which can be used to estimate fully loaded hourly costs once you add benefits and overhead (BLS, 2024a; BLS, 2024b).

Roadmap, Change Management, Vendor Selection, and Risks

Change Management Checklist

• Define who owns what (system of record) for identity, assignments, requirements, and evidence.
• Update SOPs for exceptions (name changes, license renewals, missing documents).
• Train teams on the new "source of truth" so they stop rekeying out of habit.
• Set up an escalation path for integration failures (who fixes what, how fast).
• Create a monthly KPI review so improvements are visible and drift is caught early.

Vendor Selection Criteria

• API readiness: Do they provide documented APIs, sandboxes, and versioning practices that support REST-style interactions like create/read/update? (HL7, n.d.-a).
• Event support: Can they push changes (webhooks/subscriptions) instead of forcing you to poll constantly? FHIR's framework highlights the value of subscription-driven updates (HL7, n.d.-e).
• Document strategy: Can you store documents once and share metadata/links so you avoid duplicate uploads? This aligns with the "metadata plus reference" concept in FHIR DocumentReference (HL7, n.d.-d).
• Security proof: Do they support access controls, logging, and encryption aligned to HIPAA technical safeguards? (45 C.F.R. § 164.312, 2026).
• Assurance: Can they provide SOC 2 reporting that covers the trust criteria you care about (security, availability, confidentiality, privacy)? (AICPA, 2023).

Top Risks and Plain Mitigations

Conclusion

Integrating VMS and ATS platforms to close the credentialing loop is a practical way to reduce duplicate work while improving reliability. The "why" is clear: credentialing is a verification process tied to patient safety and compliance, and it spans hospitals, staffing, and multiple authoritative sources (NAMSS, 2023; OIG, n.d.).

Five Actionable Next Steps

1. Pick one high-volume role and one facility to pilot, and document the current workflow and delays.
2. Baseline three numbers: manual touch time per placement, status mismatch rate, and time-to-cleared-to-start.
3. Define your canonical model (identity, assignment, requirements, credential items, documents, verification events) and system-of-record rules.
4. Run a security and privacy scoping workshop: identify what is PHI, apply minimum necessary, and confirm logging needs (45 C.F.R. § 164.312, 2026; HHS, n.d.).
5. Convert vendor selection into a scored checklist focused on API maturity, documents, eventing, SOC 2 evidence, and operational transparency (AICPA, 2023).

If your credentialing loop includes occupational health steps like drug screens, physicals, immunizations, and provider documentation, BlueHive can help operationalize the "evidence and status" side of the loop by standardizing what gets collected, where it lives, and how it is shared with the right stakeholders at the right time. Pairing BlueHive's occupational health workflows with a VMS-ATS integration strategy can reduce handoffs, cut duplicate uploads, and tighten expiration tracking.

---

Want to pressure-test your current process? Schedule a short integration readiness review with the BlueHive team to map your data flow, identify your highest-friction double-entry points, and define a pilot scope that can show measurable KPI movement in 60 to 90 days.

---

Sources

• AICPA. (n.d.). SOC 2: Trust services criteria. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2

• Barchard, K. A., & Pace, L. A. (2011). Preventing human error: The impact of data entry methods on data accuracy and statistical results. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1834–1839. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563211000707

• Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024a). Human resources specialists: Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/human-resources-specialists.htm

• Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024b). Medical records specialists: Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/medical-records-and-health-information-technicians.htm

• Hardt, D. (2012). The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework (RFC 6749). RFC Editor. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749

• HHS. (n.d.). Minimum necessary requirement. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/minimum-necessary-requirement/index.html

• HHS Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.). HIPAA security series: Technical safeguards. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/securityrule/techsafeguards.pdf

• HL7 International. (n.d.-a). Operations on the RESTful API (FHIR R5). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://fhir.hl7.org/fhir/operations.html

• HL7 International. (n.d.-b). Subscriptions framework (FHIR R5). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://fhir.hl7.org/fhir/subscriptions.html

• HL7 International. (n.d.-c). PractitionerRole (FHIR R5). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://fhir.hl7.org/fhir/practitionerrole.html

• HL7 International. (n.d.-d). DocumentReference (FHIR R5). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://fhir.hl7.org/fhir/documentreference.html

• Jones, M., Bradley, J., & Sakimura, N. (2015). JSON Web Token (JWT) (RFC 7519). RFC Editor. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519

• Martinez, S., & Snelick, R. (n.d.). An HL7 v2 platform for standards development and testing. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.nist.gov/document/hl7-v2-platform-standards-development-and-testing

• NAMSS. (2024). The ideal credentialing standards for initial practitioner applicants. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.namss.org/Portals/0/NAMSS_1260700-23_ICS_Document_UpdateFINAL%20%281%29.pdf

• National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (n.d.). License verification (Nursys). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://ncsbn.org/nursys.htm

• National Practitioner Data Bank. (n.d.). Querying the NPDB: About querying. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/hcorg/aboutQuerying.jsp

• Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Exclusions (LEIE). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.oig.hhs.gov/exclusions/index.asp

• Paulsen, A., Overgaard, S., & Lauritsen, J. M. (2012). Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing: An example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes. PLOS ONE, 7(4), e35087. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035087

• Staffing Industry Analysts. (n.d.). Vendor management system (VMS). Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.staffingindustry.com/lexicon/v/vendor-management-system

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). A guide to applicant tracking systems. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/human-resources/applicant-tracking-systems-explained

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026). 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 technical safeguards. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-C/section-164.312

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026). 45 C.F.R. § 164.514 minimum necessary requirements. Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-C/part-164/subpart-E/section-164.514

• Weatherall, J., et al. (2013). Error rates in a clinical data repository: Lessons from the transition to electronic data transfer. BMJ Open, 3(5), e002406. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e002406