This is a page to capture the on-going discussions with different regions stakeholders in the Vacancy working group regarding the management of vacant posts processes in various regions with the aim of coming up with a nationalised process for recording this information on TIS in a consistent manner so that Code of Practice information can be reported on.

Attendees

...

Angela Fletcher, Helan Raynor, Kay Appleyard, Fiona Ball, Jenny Albon, Helan Friedrichsen, Joanne Watson, Nazia Akhthar, Chris Norman, Maria Kist, Lynn Bradley, Dale, Gwylim, James Harris, Alistair Pringle,
...
# Questions/Discussions Comments and points for further discussion
1 What are the problems we are trying to address?
Performance issue of recording huge amount of placecholders on TIS against a post and rendering this on the UI
Reports of Code of practice and defining what those should be nationally
What needs to be reported on?
What does BMA asks for?
What are the 'exceptions'?
How code of practice can or should look?
Definition of the level of detail of the reports
Audits: Making the placement last amended date available in NDW for reporting
2 Who are we trying to address those problems for?
3 What are the expected benefits if those are addressed?
Better code of practice reporting
4 Why What is/are the purpose/s for Local Offices to record placeholders?
Initially used to inform trusts of vacancies
Allows London to generate a change report for Trusts - 12 weeks snapshot taken from the datawarehouse, runs a comparison on specific fields to see what changes have been made
e.g. Reports: All trainees in a programme, All posts in a programme etc.
Allows code of practice reporting, e.g. no of posts notified 12 weeks before placement start date, no of trainees moved from trusts, amount trainees moving NPN.
If post is vacant for a year, am I going to get a returning trainee type of reporting.
Which trainees missed the 12 weeks code of practice compliance?
5 What are the Local Offices that use placeholders on TIS and and who use an offline process?
North: DR Vacanct / Dr Hold
Lynn, NE: Dr Vacant
London - Dr Hold / Dr Recruit - 20 different categories altogether
10 reasons for 'Hold' - PMD...
10 reasons for 'Recruit' placeholders - IDT, Statutory, Reccruit on reserve, Exam PGD...
South: None, done via programme teams rotations
Yorkshire & Humber: track locally on spreadsheets, offline
Other regions need to speak to their Programme teams to find out
6 Which Local Offices do not use placeholders at all and why?
7 For those who are using a process of some sort, what are the problems you are currently facing with your current way of recording placeholders?
8 What are the various types of placeholders you record and for what reasons each of them is recorded?
Dr Vacant
Dr Hold
Dr Recruit etc.
London - Dr Hold / Dr Recruit - 20 different categories altogether
Any more
9 Which regions record which one/s of the above types and are they for the same reason?
10
Is there a national requirement to what London is currently required to report on given the high level of granularity? If not can an MVP fields set be agreed to be recorded on TIS?
e.g. - Vacancy type (Vacancy, on hold, recruitment etc. tbd), Vacancy reason, dates from and to, Exported to ESR, last modified placement date etc.

11 Keeping the current placeholders updated - How does London do that? Do they use the bulk placement update function on TIS to do that?
12 Can these be categorised/grouped?
3 categories - Angela to provide a slimmed down version of their reports and propose to BMs
Angela took an action to categorise and review with the BMs a proposal
13 Can this be looked at properly of how this can be nationalised rather than rushing something for a deadline?
14 Are placeholders transferred to ESR? London: They are excluded in the ESR interface for London. Trusts can access them on Sharepoint portal.
For those that use the TIS-ESR interface, yes. (ESR Streamlining group - consideration for these placeholders)
15 Is there a requirement to transfer placeholders to ESR?
...

Version	Old Version 5	New Version 6
Changes made by	Ashley Ransoo	Ashley Ransoo
Saved on	24 Jan 2019	25 Jan 2019

Versions Compared

Key

Attendees

#	Questions/Discussions	Comments and points for further discussion
1	What are the problems we are trying to address?	Performance issue of recording huge amount of placecholders on TIS against a post and rendering this on the UI Reports of Code of practice and defining what those should be nationally What needs to be reported on? What does BMA asks for? What are the 'exceptions'? How code of practice can or should look? Definition of the level of detail of the reports Audits: Making the placement last amended date available in NDW for reporting
2	Who are we trying to address those problems for?
3	What are the expected benefits if those are addressed?	Better code of practice reporting
4	Why What is/are the purpose/s for Local Offices to record placeholders?	Initially used to inform trusts of vacancies Allows London to generate a change report for Trusts - 12 weeks snapshot taken from the datawarehouse, runs a comparison on specific fields to see what changes have been made e.g. Reports: All trainees in a programme, All posts in a programme etc. Allows code of practice reporting, e.g. no of posts notified 12 weeks before placement start date, no of trainees moved from trusts, amount trainees moving NPN. If post is vacant for a year, am I going to get a returning trainee type of reporting. Which trainees missed the 12 weeks code of practice compliance?
5	What are the Local Offices that use placeholders on TIS and and who use an offline process?	North: DR Vacanct / Dr Hold Lynn, NE: Dr Vacant London - Dr Hold / Dr Recruit - 20 different categories altogether 10 reasons for 'Hold' - PMD... 10 reasons for 'Recruit' placeholders - IDT, Statutory, Reccruit on reserve, Exam PGD... South: None, done via programme teams rotations Yorkshire & Humber: track locally on spreadsheets, offline Other regions need to speak to their Programme teams to find out
6	Which Local Offices do not use placeholders at all and why?
7	For those who are using a process of some sort, what are the problems you are currently facing with your current way of recording placeholders?
8	What are the various types of placeholders you record and for what reasons each of them is recorded?	Dr Vacant Dr Hold Dr Recruit etc. London - Dr Hold / Dr Recruit - 20 different categories altogether Any more
9	Which regions record which one/s of the above types and are they for the same reason?
10	Is there a national requirement to what London is currently required to report on given the high level of granularity? If not can an MVP fields set be agreed to be recorded on TIS? e.g. - Vacancy type (Vacancy, on hold, recruitment etc. tbd), Vacancy reason, dates from and to, Exported to ESR, last modified placement date etc.
11	Keeping the current placeholders updated - How does London do that? Do they use the bulk placement update function on TIS to do that?
12	Can these be categorised/grouped?	3 categories - Angela to provide a slimmed down version of their reports and propose to BMs Angela took an action to categorise and review with the BMs a proposal
13	Can this be looked at properly of how this can be nationalised rather than rushing something for a deadline?
14	Are placeholders transferred to ESR?	London: They are excluded in the ESR interface for London. Trusts can access them on Sharepoint portal. For those that use the TIS-ESR interface, yes. (ESR Streamlining group - consideration for these placeholders)
15	Is there a requirement to transfer placeholders to ESR?

Page Comparison

Versions Compared

Key

Attendees