Page Comparison

Discussed on DQ on 04/06:

• Agreement re changing '0', 'Retired', 'TBC' or 'u' to UNKNOWN in the GMC/GDC/PH number
• Changing blank to UNKNOWN not recommended as it may legitimately be blank because they have a GDC or PH number
• What we should do to those with blank/null in all 3?
• JH: Among those none have programmes and very few have placements. There are Staff, Both, Contact, Admin.
• JW: 
  • Admin and Contact = N/A ?
  • Staff and Both = UNKNOWN ?
    is that the agreement?

04/06: The following has been agreed:

• GMC for Contacts, Staff and Both = UNKNOWN
• GMC for Admin = N/A

DS: List of persons with same GMC's, check the DW to see if some of those have been resolved?

TISDEV-4841 to be paused from releasing to Prod until David Short (Unlicensed)has done his investigation of the ones that could potentially be merged. Merge Rules to be shared. To create tickets following that.

11/06: Ongoing and will probably be ready mid-week.

18/06: On hold until the document uploads are available on People records? The idea being if de-duplicated before the documents have been added, we won't be able to attach the documents to the deduped person records. 

Get an update from Ben/Anita regarding document management in a couple of weeks. 

02/07: Benjamin Wittonare you able to give an update on this?

09/07: Ben: We are expecting the document delta from Hicom this week. The next step will be to get them onto Azure and then apply the agreed meta tags.  Do let me know if you need any other details/updates. 

16/07: Delta received. Document work to continue in this sprint. Following which David can work his magic on the duplicates. David Short (Unlicensed)  does your  initial work need to be revisited? and will there be any dev requirement related to your dup work? We will need to include this in Planning so will need to know  Complexity and volume - David may need to work with Dev in next sprint in order to prepare this. Prioritisation required. 

23/07: Work in progress, script modified. (David Short (Unlicensed),  bullet points of what's required to bring into the sprint as User Stories)

13/08: Document Management migration complete - when can work start on the duplicate records David Short (Unlicensed) ?

20/08: DS: Scripts being worked on. Next step to create the stories in Jira. 

03/09: David: Looking at having the scenarios by end of the week. 

10/09: DS confirmed this is a trainee on his list too - 

10/09: DS demo'ed some 'strong match' scenarios that can be safely de-duped. Sue/ Joanne Watson (Unlicensed): impact on leave manager when de-duped.

Output of Round 1 of de-duplication:

https://healtheducationengland.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WPI-North/Shared Documents/TIS/North (all)/TIS Person De-Dup Project/Duplicates Output v1.xlsx?d=w70c77e6caa5b4cc1a2408663a1e77fd6&e=4%3a3feb8d869af74e61aeae63ea2a9baff4&at=9

17/09: Tickets for dev to start looking at. (AR and DS) 

Considering other priorities in the next sprint, we are looking at mid to late October.

24/09: 

01/10: Methodology attached to the ticket. David Short (Unlicensed) to separate out only the records that need to be merged for Round 1 to attach to the ticket.  

15/10: TISNEW-2057 has been pulled out of sprint due to impact on leave manager records. Merging on the TIS side would leave orphan records on the Intrepid/TWS side.

22/10: Awaiting confirmation on the above regarding the correct records out of the duplicates to get rid of.

29/10: List received from David - will add to the ticket and work with devs to get it into a forthcoming sprint.

Daniel Smith and Angela tasked me with speaking to you guys about what we can do about NTN format. 

11/06: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed)to work with data leads and nominated people to look at the various options, also considering maintaining this outside TIS.

18/06: JW shared DRN spec with JH on 11th June

18/06: Meeting with Daniel Smith (GMC contact) to discuss further. 

2/7/18: New format agreed in principle. To be socialised at the ODG on 4/7/18. Internal meeting amongst HEE BMs required to discuss rollout.

02/07: Output of the conversation sent to BMs to decide the next steps forward. 

16/07: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed)ticket TISDEV-4966 in this sprint relates to what NTN fields are needed on the TIS FE and BE. Are the NTNs and DRNs James Harrisis creating to be shown on the TIS FE? And what about reporting?

23/07: Rob trying to set up a discussion to take this forward with BMs.

30/07: Meeting with Angela tomorrow. Ashley is creating a ticket relating to ability to add NTN via the bulk upload as Angela wants to know timeframe for getting this onto TIS.

13/08: Agreement reached with GMC. Angela F and BMs accept there will be a mix this year with some trainees having the 'old' style NTN and some who will be issued with the 'new' style NTN. Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) are you able to add more info here?

20/08: College of EM have raised objections to the plan as is so i have emailed them to seek clarification. Have requested i be allowed to talk to the BM group directly as there doesn't seem to be as much traction as i'd like.

03/09 All Colleges apart from Surgery have agreed they do not need NTNs for enrolment of trainees. I await conformation from Surgery. Angela has sent comms out to BMs with suggested wording for an email to trainees.

JH will put together a Tableau report for NTNs.

10/09: JH reports done, need to speak to John to bring them across to Tableau and give access to users. 

17/09: Discussed at the ODG (Overarching Data Group) to determine the business requirement.

24/09: ODG taking place this week. 

01/10: JH: Dual training NTNs combinations to be reviewed. Old NTN and new NTN to be maintained on Tableau report and review with BMs. James Harris to discuss with Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) when he is back.

22/10: Agreed to Close.

23/07:

• James H to describe please  
• Schedule an investigation task for a dev to look at the BE and FE on TIS.
• Raise a story/bug, James Harris/ Alice Thompson- could you send some examples please? To be prioritised on sprint planning as a high priority. (cc Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed), Joanne Watson (Unlicensed))
• 30/07 - this development is in the current sprint. Simon will be working on it.
• 13/08: carried over into this sprint (Sprint 55)
• 20/08: To be looked at sprint planning
• 03/09: Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) -  Issue found when running reports, if the specialty is a sub-specialty, it does not come through. To be prioritised for Sprint 57. 

  Jira Legacy
  server System JIRA serverId 4c843cd5-e5a9-329d-ae88-66091fcfe3c7 key TISNEW-170

• 10/09: Paul to liaise with JH/AB on follow up queries.
• 17/09: AR: Follow up with Paul on the ticket. 
• 24/09: He's spoken to James. Paul needs to pick this up with NDW next.
• 01/10: Paul has posted an update against the ticket, can this be reviewed and agree the next step forward. 
• What is the number of posts affected by this? - 4200 records since last time checked. 
• Question asked what would a manual fix entail? Period of time for which this needs to be done to be determined- James Harris/ Alice Thompson

15/10: 

Alice Brindle and I talked through a solution for this which is as follows: For all placements where the specialty is null but the sub-specialty is not null, populate the specialty with the value from the sub-specialty and remove the value from the sub-specialty value.

I have done a check and this will affect 1070 placement records. The above scenario should never exist which is why I think this fix will resolve the issue.

I can provide a list of placementTisIDs for the above to be applied to.

JH - has provided a list of 1064 records attached to the ticket and suggested this to be reviewed.

22/10: JH/AB agreed the records are good to go. Update ticket to confirm.

29/10: Ticket Done - all work completed. Set this to CLOSED?

13/08: 

• Need to ID those Consultants who aren't on TIS as trainers and remove them
• Those who are on a trainers we need to udnerstand what information we should surface on their records e.g. Assessment information perhaps isn't required.
• All open for discussion and agreement - Ben to set the scene
• Other regions to review Alice's scripts. 
• How were consultants recorded on intrepid?  - Simply, not in a consistent way.  Some Trusts might have used the consultant role to define these records, others may have applied a training/non-training grade to a record.  
• Benjamin Witton to update with some bullet points of what's been discussed. (not about the mulberry bushes) 

1. We have been asked to remove consultant/non-trainee data from the system.  The focus is those records where there is noinvolvement in the management of a trainee.
2. There are four parts involved in this work:
   1. Define the rules/cases to identify the records which should be removed from the system.  We want to achieve this incrementally, so we should start with easy win's and then work our way to the more difficult cases.
   2. Create the SQL scripts, run the SQL scripts and verify the results and that those records should be removed from the system.
   3. Introduce a process where the TIS Development Team are able to take the results and simply and efficiently remove the records from the system (without too much back and forth).
   4. Confirm with the owner the data to be removed if they want a copy of the data.  
3. Senior colleagues want to see progress by 22nd August.  We can satisfy this if we can show our approach and even any preliminary results.  

Objective:

Gain understanding of what the local office requirements for trust access should be based on - NPN seems to be the incorrect basis as in TWS it is based on Training and/or Employing body

Email conversation excerpts: 

07/09:
James:
- Having the logic based on NPN would require us to update thousands of posts numbers and the ESR positions in the trust.
- I was discussing this with Gwilym earlier and we think the logic should be an OR statement with EmployingBody and TrainingBody.
07/09:
- Joanne/Paul: Currently on TIS: Placement > Site > Trust determines the access

- JH: This is what was on Intrepid and works for me
10/09:
- Andy: concerns over placement > site > trust logic
Q - Site reference table - Is site attributed to only one parent trust

Q - So if we are using the Trust of the placement site – then we can still only grant access to a post & its occupant to that one trust

Q - e.g. a Severn GP trainee goes to Royal United Hospital (RD130) for a placement. The parent trust in the reference table for that site would be Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust (RD1). We would also want however for Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RTE) to have access as the lead employer. The only way I’d picture that happening would be through the ‘OR’ statement on Employing Body and Training Body that James mentioned below.

Q - small pockets of users that are trust based but have their data profiles restricted by Programme. We have done this for the new GP lead employer in Thames Valley as Pennine Acute Trust won the tender as well as some local trust based administrators that only look after GP. This allowed us to prevent them from seeing trainees that were not relevant to them at the trust they are based but also an easy way of seeing the trainees out in GP practices as they don’t really have a parent trust, we have the CCG in that field for GP practices. I suspect we may need to find a workaround to this in the short term perhaps using reporting.

Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) / Ashley Ransoo - Requirement for TIS: (Ticket to be created and get an estimate from Dev)

People - If either the trainnee's EmployingBody OR TrainingBody for their Current Placement Post match the Trust, then make available to the Trust.

Posts -  If either the User is at a trust which is the EmployingBody OR TrainingBody of the Post, then make available to the Trust.

17/09:

JW: 

...very rough guideline of the complexity of amending the current logic on the trust role was given an 8 (out of a possible 10). This is rather large and I have concerns that we might not make the deadline of the end of next week for the role to be amended, tested and users issued with their login details.

So, with the above in mind I considered what else we could do if we approach this from another angle.  Please could I ask you to consider the following - instead of changing the trust role we leave it as it currently is - so placement>post>site>trust but for those users who are lead employers or who just need to see the trainees and posts from a number of trusts we give them the access to that range of trusts so they can see the entire trainee landscape they should. We would obviously need this info from yourselves but it would save us a lot of dev time.

This isn't elegant but should get us across the line for the 1st October. I then suggest that I ask Ashley to speak to you all asap and get full understanding of the different roles in trust-land so that we can correctly create roles that are needed e.g. the one to allow users to only see trainees based on programme etc. We can then get these roles created and rolled out.

Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) - Raise ticket for [‎24/‎09/‎2018 14:18] James Harris: EOE/RQ800/007/FY1/801

01/10: TISNEW-2059 going into next Sprint (Sprint 59)

08/10: This is currently in Progress in current sprint.

15/10: This has been fixed and released to Pron Prod on Friday. This can be closed.