Attendees: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed), Sue Barrand (Unlicensed), James Harris, David Short (Unlicensed), Chris Norman (Unlicensed), Adewale Adekoya, Ashley Ransoo, Mike Richardson
Discussion/Action :
First discussed on DQ on 04/06:
08/01: 
TISNEW-2364 - Merging, then removal of Duplicate Person Records - Round 1 DONE - Work completed for Round 1 on Stage and testing began. Since this was a flyway script, the importance was stressed on completion of the testing on stage as this would block anything else from being released to Production in out release pipeline
DS: Has done some testing. SB: leave manager tests carried out. JH/DS/AH: re-use some of the scripts that were used during consolidation for testing on metabase for next week.
DS: Prog membership, placements and assessments - Looks good so far.
How long more this would need? - conclude by Wed 16/01.( and are going to test this on Wednesday afternoon)
21/09: The scripts have been run on Prod over the weekend.
has taken extracts of the data on Friday afternoon ahead of the scripts being run.4/02: Round two will be needed. LaSE still to advise DS on what to do with the records that weren't an easy match. Chris picking this up - London may be ok but KSS need more attention
4/02: Leave manager - need to do checks for the circa 500 records to make sure that the round 2 de-duping would not leave orphaned records (as per the procedure for Round 1
01/04:
to provide the list of Id's/template for the second round of duplication (second strongest match rule). To send the list out to all regions be checked. Jen would have done for the South - to be checked?15/04: Still awaiting for EMD, South and London.
24/06: Jen to speak to David tomorrow (25th) re queries she has found in the South.
James to ask Gwil where has gotten to with this - returns from leave on the 1st July
08/07: David to resend file to Gwil and Jen is no longer confused 
as she now understands that this part of the exercise will not remove ALL erroneous records. Work is continuing........
22/07: Ongoing, waiting for South and EMD data
02/09 EM have submitted, awaiting the South (ongoing)
14/10: Back with DS - to compare and rebuild the new list of what's been merged
- Might be useful for bringing in the Northern Ireland data into TIS (Adewale Adekoya)
11/11: Completed by South. With David at the moment.
09/12: There will be some duplicates because of Study Leave. The merging would have to be done at some point on TIS. Almost ready to go.
06/01: DS post on slack for additional feedback.
Removal of consultant data has a dependency on De-duplication work.
22/10: Dependency on the De-dupe work. Follow up with Chris after the de-dupe work has taken place. This is to identify which Consultant data belongs to which Trust so that they can have this if the trust wants.
29/10: Linked to the removal of the consultant information from TIS we also need to address the issue of the non-trainee posts. So a further piece of work needs to take place to identify and hard delete these posts. Will need to take a copy of this so that (like with the non-trainee records) we can pass this to the trusts if needed. JW to create ticket related to the deletion of posts.
19/11 - Once de-dupe is done, check the full list of People from Chris. Please review against the surviving records (IDs) on TISNEW-2057.
14/01: Wait until the testing of the de-dupe has been done on stage then carry on.-
04/02: Awaiting on DS on testing outcome for TISNEW-2057 to prioritise TISNEW-2083. Does the script attached to 2083 has everything?
Check with Rob about urgency of this re IG - JW to do this
01/04:
to check with Rob/Ben.15/04: response from Rob 'From an IG perspective - of we don't need it then we should not keep it.'
Supervisors and Leave approvers taken into account on Chris's script.
24/06: The South has undertaken a post audit and set to Inactive Consultant/non current posts which has resulted in a reduction of approx. 2000 posts
Suggestion that this is something that the other three regions can do while the Person de-dup is in the process of being completed.
Suspect most of the Consultant posts in the North and Mids and East are now inactive meaning that the majority of outstanding posts belong to KSS (possibly)
Once this has been completed for Posts they can remain as Inactive rather than undertake another unnecessary step.
22/07: Still waiting on the de-duplication work. To discuss about Supervisors after this piece of work.
- Do we know when the post update tool might be available to update the posts? Is it worth waiting?
- Would we be able to do an update on the back-end to the site reference table?
AR:
Site is linked to Trust via the TrustId. When creating a Site, a valid Trust Code is entered and the Trust ID is fetched from the Trust reference table to attach to the Site.
However, since the Trust Code is not currently unique in the Trust reference table, the site might be linked to incorrect Trusts.
E.g.
Trust Code RQ3:
Trust Code VTS:
Are these sites linked to the correct trusts
?
01/04: Check if the FE is displaying INACTIVE values when creating site. Need to understand what the problem is.
to speak to Tom de Salis/invite him to the next data leads call .- Raise a ticket to get the Trust search behave as the Site Search.
- list posted on DQ channel to be discussed.
15/04:
- Identify duplicate Sites (Site codes not unique) in Site Reference Table-
- Identify duplicate Trusts codes in Trust reference table
- Identify association between Current Sites to Inactive Trusts
- Each Region data Lead to review on DQ channel.
24/06: Regions to act on report created by Chris. Not for immediate attention due to the current work ongoing in Local Offices.
19/08: Ongoing
07/11/2019 Similar issue raised Lynn Bradley team| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendees: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed), Sue Barrand (Unlicensed), James Harris, David Short (Unlicensed), Chris Norman (Unlicensed), Adewale Adekoya, Ashley Ransoo, Mike Richardson, Gwilym Williams (Unlicensed)
Discussion/Action :
# | Discussion/Action | Responsible | Outcome | Status | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Resolve Duplicates - TISDEV-4841: Resolve the duplicate invalid GMC numbers, such as 'Retired,' and make them 'UNKNOWN' | Data leads | First discussed on DQ on 04/06: 08/01: DS: Has done some testing. SB: leave manager tests carried out. JH/DS/AH: re-use some of the scripts that were used during consolidation for testing on metabase for next week. DS: Prog membership, placements and assessments - Looks good so far. How long more this would need? - conclude by Wed 16/01.( and are going to test this on Wednesday afternoon) 21/09: The scripts have been run on Prod over the weekend. has taken extracts of the data on Friday afternoon ahead of the scripts being run.4/02: Round two will be needed. LaSE still to advise DS on what to do with the records that weren't an easy match. Chris picking this up - London may be ok but KSS need more attention 4/02: Leave manager - need to do checks for the circa 500 records to make sure that the round 2 de-duping would not leave orphaned records (as per the procedure for Round 1 01/04: to provide the list of Id's/template for the second round of duplication (second strongest match rule). To send the list out to all regions be checked. Jen would have done for the South - to be checked?15/04: Still awaiting for EMD, South and London. 24/06: Jen to speak to David tomorrow (25th) re queries she has found in the South. James to ask Gwil where has gotten to with this - returns from leave on the 1st July 08/07: David to resend file to Gwil and Jen is no longer confused 22/07: Ongoing, waiting for South and EMD data 02/09 EM have submitted, awaiting the South (ongoing) 14/10: Back with DS - to compare and rebuild the new list of what's been merged
11/11: Completed by South. With David at the moment. 09/12: There will be some duplicates because of Study Leave. The merging would have to be done at some point on TIS. Almost ready to go. 06/01: DS post on slack for additional feedback. 03/02: DS posted on slack for everyone else to confirm this is OK. (De-dupe Round 2 spreadsheet) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Identification and removal of Consultant data on TIS | All | Removal of consultant data has a dependency on De-duplication work. 22/10: Dependency on the De-dupe work. Follow up with Chris after the de-dupe work has taken place. This is to identify which Consultant data belongs to which Trust so that they can have this if the trust wants. 29/10: Linked to the removal of the consultant information from TIS we also need to address the issue of the non-trainee posts. So a further piece of work needs to take place to identify and hard delete these posts. Will need to take a copy of this so that (like with the non-trainee records) we can pass this to the trusts if needed. JW to create ticket related to the deletion of posts. 19/11 - Once de-dupe is done, check the full list of People from Chris. Please review against the surviving records (IDs) on TISNEW-2057. 14/01: Wait until the testing of the de-dupe has been done on stage then carry on.- 04/02: Awaiting on DS on testing outcome for TISNEW-2057 to prioritise TISNEW-2083. Does the script attached to 2083 has everything? Check with Rob about urgency of this re IG - JW to do this 01/04: to check with Rob/Ben.15/04: response from Rob 'From an IG perspective - of we don't need it then we should not keep it.' Supervisors and Leave approvers taken into account on Chris's script. 24/06: The South has undertaken a post audit and set to Inactive Consultant/non current posts which has resulted in a reduction of approx. 2000 posts Suggestion that this is something that the other three regions can do while the Person de-dup is in the process of being completed. Suspect most of the Consultant posts in the North and Mids and East are now inactive meaning that the majority of outstanding posts belong to KSS (possibly) Once this has been completed for Posts they can remain as Inactive rather than undertake another unnecessary step. 22/07: Still waiting on the de-duplication work. To discuss about Supervisors after this piece of work. | On hold until Point 1 has been completed to the group's satisfaction for People area | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Sites created with Trust code. Trust codes are not unique. | 01/03/2019: Tom De Salis: Cleansing the NTS data revealed the fact that 3 of our CCGs merged into a super-CCG last year, which means their sites have the wrong Trust/Trust code on TIS. This is an issue on both the Site reference table and on all the posts related to these sites. It affects around 100 sites.
AR: Site is linked to Trust via the TrustId. When creating a Site, a valid Trust Code is entered and the Trust ID is fetched from the Trust reference table to attach to the Site. However, since the Trust Code is not currently unique in the Trust reference table, the site might be linked to incorrect Trusts. E.g. Trust Code RQ3:
Trust Code VTS:
Are these sites linked to the correct trusts ?
01/04: Check if the FE is displaying INACTIVE values when creating site. Need to understand what the problem is. to speak to Tom de Salis/invite him to the next data leads call .
15/04:
24/06: Regions to act on report created by Chris. Not for immediate attention due to the current work ongoing in Local Offices. 19/08: Ongoing 07/11/2019 Similar issue raised Lynn Bradley team
Mids and East - Done. South - Ongoing North - Ongoing. London - 11/11: Post the spreadsheet on DQ channel to sort out the duplicate Trusts codes and ensure 1 only is CURRENT for each code. Trusts do not have Local Office boundaries, owner field can be ignored. 03/02: Inactivate and ensure only unique trust codes are left London: North: In progress South: In progress Midlands and East: Done | Not for immediate attention as priority in LOs is August intake and ARCPS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Dental data on TIS | All | 24/06: No DFT in the NW and Orthodontics in KSS. 08/07: David to be in receipt of this info in near future - suspect for David to import into TIS 22/07: KSS: Nothing to be done, NW: Will be done imminently 19/08: Awaiting on NW. 30/09: It's in progress. 03/02: Almost complete, check on the next one. Required the Bulk Post Bulk Create tool to be available else look at one-off script to be run by the devs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | NTN Generation | Data Leads | Training Pathways:
| 3577Not for immediate attention as priority in LOs is August intake and ARCPS | 4 | Dental data on TIS | All | 24/06: No DFT in the NW and Orthodontics in KSS. 08/07: David to be in receipt of this info in near future - suspect for David to import into TIS 22/07: KSS: Nothing to be done, NW: Will be done imminently 19/08: Awaiting on NW. 30/09: It's in progress. | 5 | NTN Generation | Data Leads | Training Pathways:
16/09:(Ashley Ransoo)
16/09:(Ashley Ransoo)
04/11: Maria Kist (Unlicensed) asked a question about the other training pathways (...CCTi (industry), CCTn etc. and whether those should be factored into the NTN generation? 11/11: Question raised with the GMC. CCT is what the GMC/CoPMED have asked for to be recorded in the NTN and not the other sub-types.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | TrainingNumberAtTime to be recorded on TIS and sent to NDW for ARCP return | All/James |
TISNEW-3389 |
key | TISNEW-3610 | 04/11: Maria Kist (Unlicensed) asked a question about the other training pathways (...CCTi (industry), CCTn etc. and whether those should be factored into the NTN generation? 11/11: Question raised with the GMC. CCT is what the GMC/CoPMED have asked for to be recorded in the NTN and not the other sub-types.
| 6 | TrainingNumberAtTime to be recorded on TIS and sent to NDW for ARCP return | All/James |
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Review of how this works in the current ARCP return
- If the Curricula dates change how do we capture/handle this on the assessment records proactively?
- JH: So for the automate NTN ticket as part of refinement we need to consider how a current NTN is autogenerated but also how a future programme membership NTN is autogenerate
- JH: For current, it is easy as just use the curricula as per today's date
- JH:For future, I think it should be: generate the NTN based upon the first day of the programme membership
14/10: For TIS: Ashley Ransoo update ticket with
- If the curriculum attached to the Prog membership is amended, and there are assessment records for the attached curriculum and the Review date is within the Curriculum membership start and end dates, then it should update the TrainingNumberAtTime against the assessment records.
- It is not run as of today but as of the Curriculum dates.
- Recording of the historical NTNs not required for TIS.
11/11: Ticket updated with the above.
- Possibility of Not having an NTN. In which case the Assessment record will end up with a null NTN. This is where the review date of the assessment is after the Programme Curricula completion date on the Prog membership when the assessment is being created.
Do we need to review/rationalise? i.e. where there are invalid data for those. It affects search and reporting.
|
- Review of how this works in the current ARCP return
- If the Curricula dates change how do we capture/handle this on the assessment records proactively?
- JH: So for the automate NTN ticket as part of refinement we need to consider how a current NTN is autogenerated but also how a future programme membership NTN is autogenerate
- JH: For current, it is easy as just use the curricula as per today's date
- JH:For future, I think it should be: generate the NTN based upon the first day of the programme membership
14/10: For TIS: Ashley Ransoo update ticket with
- If the curriculum attached to the Prog membership is amended, and there are assessment records for the attached curriculum and the Review date is within the Curriculum membership start and end dates, then it should update the TrainingNumberAtTime against the assessment records.
- It is not run as of today but as of the Curriculum dates.
- Recording of the historical NTNs not required for TIS.
11/11: Ticket updated with the above.
- Possibility of Not having an NTN. In which case the Assessment record will end up with a null NTN. This is where the review date of the assessment is after the Programme Curricula completion date on the Prog membership when the assessment is being created.
Ticket to bulk deactivate as a one-off.
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Posts with no Programmes attached.
There are currently a number of posts that do not have a programme attached to them.
There's been some suggestions to make the Programme field mandatory on the Post (both via a new bulk post create tool and from the UI). However, in cases where there are currently no programmes attached, it would be problematic to edit the post from he UI if all Mandatory fields are not completed. What should happened with those Posts, are they still in use?
Posted on #data_quality
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Data leads to make these posts inactive using the TIS bulk posts update tool before we make them mandatory?
https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/
28211/11:
- UKNOWN should be used GMC/GDC/PH number when not known
- N/A used for non-clinical person records
Ticket up - All Blanks and N/A can be turned to UNKNOWN.
11/12: Empty strings saved in registration numbers having an impact on reports -
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
review the above so that validations can be added to TIS for recording of registration numbers:
- If a GMC number is provided and the trainee does not have a GDC and PH, then these can be left as Nulls? - Yes
- If a GDC and a GMC is provided then, PH can be left as null? - Yes
- If GDC is provided and this is the only registration number for the trainee, then GMC and PH can be left as nulls ? - Yes
- If the GMC number is not known and this is not a dental trainee at the time of adding a trainee, and no other registration numbers are provided, then GMC should be entered as UNKNOWN and the other 2 left as nulls? - Yes
- If trainee is from a dental programme and no registration numbers is known, then GMC and PH can be left as nulls and UNKNOWN entered in GDC? - Yes
- If a trainee is a PH trainee, then PH number is entered or if not known entered as UNKNOWN and the GDC and GMC left as nulls.
SuppoRTT Data Programme: Project Plan
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
09/12: Getting an update from the last SupportRTT meeting and next steps forward. Can be closed as being covered by different group.
Ashley Ransoo Create ticket to bulk deactivate as a one-off.
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Posts with no Programmes attached.
There are currently a number of posts that do not have a programme attached to them.
There's been some suggestions to make the Programme field mandatory on the Post (both via a new bulk post create tool and from the UI). However, in cases where there are currently no programmes attached, it would be problematic to edit the post from he UI if all Mandatory fields are not completed. What should happened with those Posts, are they still in use?
Posted on #data_quality
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Data leads to make these posts inactive using the TIS bulk posts update tool before we make them mandatory?
Mids and East - Done
NW - NW done awaiting NE
South - Almost there
London - Get an update from Maria
TIS ticket to make mandatory:269 - Report split by Local Office
Mids and East - Done
NW - NW done awaiting NE
South - Almost there
London - Get an update from Maria
TIS ticket to make mandatory:
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
09/12: James Harris re-run the report and post on slack.
03/02: Look at how much is left without one.
In relation to the above, we are also discussing in making the Employing and Training bodies mandatory on Posts. The following posts are CURRENT on TIS and have with either a missing Employing body or Training body, or both. Can you check and update those posts as required, please? The TIS bulk post update tool should support that.
https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/283
09/12:
Mids and East - done
NW -
South - In Progress
London -
TIS ticket to make mandatory
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
03/02: Look a the percentage left without one. James to pick up with Chris.
All
James: I have started compiling a list of curricula that we could bulk inactivate when we are ready link is https://healtheducationengland.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/ProgrammesAnalysisTeam-MaE/EYOGs7vMqntKim8ycVrduwwBxVi8ktOmu8NhDyORj8VjQg?e=vKD255
We will also need to check Leads to CCT and there is a Child and Adolescent Run-Through curricula with no Curriculum Sub-Type. I assume that will be Medical Curriculum?
There's an action column in column A
09/12:
Mids and East -
NW -
South -
London -
Ticket TISNEW-3386: - Only make Current curricula available for creating/updating programme memberships with.
03/12: POG to be made 0 on all curriculum.
09/12:
- Are Site Code and Site number the same for all site records - report?
- Site code is not unique on TIS - should this be?
- Can/Should one of Site code or Site number be unique? Therefore serve the purpose of branch sites for recording the branch code
- An investigation into the ODS list, to get the ODS list into the NDW.
16/12:
Further discussions on #dataleads
- Suggestion is to record the branch code in the Site Number field and this to be unique. The Site Code will be duplicated where the parent site has multiple branch codes/Site numbers in the Site reference table.
- Ticket to add validation to TIS to make Site Number and SiteKnownAs unique once data leads have done a tidying-up of the site numbers and SiteKnownAs.
Jira Legacy server System JIRA serverId 4c843cd5-e5a9-329d-ae88-66091fcfe3c7 key TISNEW-
09/12: James Harris re-run the report and post on slack.
3713 - A meaningful name is needed for Site Number or Site Code so that it is clear to users when recording Sites.
- 274 duplicate SiteNumbers https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/285
- 28 duplicate SiteKnownAs https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/286
- There are only 49 sites where there is a mismatch between the two fields (Site number and Site Code) and of those a good chunk on is null.
09/12:
Mids and East -
NW -
South -
London -
TIS ticket to make mandatory- SiteKnownAs will be different for each Branch Site where the parent code is the same and branch code is different, therefore no impact on TIS.
- Raise ticket to add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.
Jira Legacy server System JIRA serverId 4c843cd5-e5a9-329d-ae88-66091fcfe3c7 key TISNEW-
Add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.Add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.3714
All
James: I have started compiling a list of curricula that we could bulk inactivate when we are ready link is https://healtheducationengland.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/ProgrammesAnalysisTeam-MaE/EYOGs7vMqntKim8ycVrduwwBxVi8ktOmu8NhDyORj8VjQg?e=vKD255
We will also need to check Leads to CCT and there is a Child and Adolescent Run-Through curricula with no Curriculum Sub-Type. I assume that will be Medical Curriculum?
There's an action column in column A
09/12:
Mids and East -
NW -
South -
London -
Ticket TISNEW-3386: - Only make Current curricula available for creating/updating programme memberships with.
09/12:
- Are Site Code and Site number the same for all site records - report?
- Site code is not unique on TIS - should this be?
- Can/Should one of Site code or Site number be unique? Therefore serve the purpose of branch sites for recording the branch code
- An investigation into the ODS list, to get the ODS list into the NDW.
16/12:
Further discussions on #dataleads
- Suggestion is to record the branch code in the Site Number field and this to be unique. The Site Code will be duplicated where the parent site has multiple branch codes/Site numbers in the Site reference table.
- Ticket to add validation to TIS to make Site Number and SiteKnownAs unique once data leads have done a tidying-up of the site numbers and SiteKnownAs.
Jira Legacy server System JIRA serverId 4c843cd5-e5a9-329d-ae88-66091fcfe3c7 key TISNEW-3713 - A meaningful name is needed for Site Number or Site Code so that it is clear to users when recording Sites.
- 274 duplicate SiteNumbers https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/285
- 28 duplicate SiteKnownAs https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/286
- There are only 49 sites where there is a mismatch between the two fields (Site number and Site Code) and of those a good chunk on is null.
- SiteKnownAs will be different for each Branch Site where the parent code is the same and branch code is different, therefore no impact on TIS.
- Raise ticket to add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.
Add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.Add SiteCode to TIS_Interim and send to NDW.Jira Legacy server System JIRA serverId 4c843cd5-e5a9-329d-ae88-66091fcfe3c7 key TISNEW-3714
09/12:
- Programme name with run-through on it, agreed at PAG
- Are all local offices recording this in a consistent way? Numbers not tallying in reports
Other regions to check and confirm:
North:
South:
London:
Mids and East:
09/12:
- Programme name with run-through on it, agreed at PAG
- Are all local offices recording this in a consistent way? Numbers not tallying in reports
Other regions to check and confirm:
North: To check and come back with
South: Mike to progress with Jenny Albon
London:
Mids and East: Done
31/12:
We are working on a ticket in current sprint to set the Status field (Now Training Status) based on the programme membership.
There are a number of programme memberships where we cannot set this at the moment as they have either missing start/end dates or the end date is greater than start date, and as such are invalid. Can the below be looked at by data leads for their respective regions:
Record Status > Training Status field
03/01:
It appears that some Local Offices have been using this field to record Trainers approval.
It was agreed at PAG for this field to be auto-populated based on trainee being on a current/inactive programme membership.
Any impact on Leave manager / Accent and NDW reporting?
06/01:
- Mismatch of status between the list view and detail view
- List of Roles for Accent - Sue to provide
03/02:
Trainers status have been migrated to the new Trainers Approval area on TIS within the Approval Status.
All trainers have been given a status of CURRENT with empty start and end dates, the idea being to have a bulk tool to update those and make the status calculated in the future.
These are the 3 PAG processes that have been reviewed and are ready to be implemented which are not dependent on TIS developments.
I’ve copied in Kate as from the discussions at TOG and PAG it would seem sensible to follow a similar process to SOPs for implementation and review. I have spoken to the data leads so part of the PAG process will involve the data group suggesting how compliance can be checked and reported e.g if a processes requires a field to be completed, to report on whether the data has been entered.
The PAG group initially suggested 1st Jan for implementation but as it has taken some time to review I have amended this to 3rd February. No particular issues have been identified with the implementation of these processes.
03/02:
Will be linked to the Trainee UI development.
Who should be able to update what?
E.g. Specialty list being updated without other Local Offices knowing, impacts on all records linked to that reference value.
Should there be category/group of reference lists that can only be updated by specific people/roles/data leads on TIS or an outside business process to agree who does the update for such references.
ticket to support updating the remaining post and stop the wiping out of the specialty on the associated fields.
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
06/01: Can be closed. EAN Posts that have not been repatriated
31/12:
We are working on a ticket in current sprint to set the Status field (Now Training Status) based on the programme membership.
There are a number of programme memberships where we cannot set this at the moment as they have either missing start/end dates or the end date is greater than start date, and as such are invalid. Can the below be looked at by data leads for their respective regions:
Record Status > Training Status field
03/01:
It appears that some Local Offices have been using this field to record Trainers approval.
It was agreed at PAG for this field to be auto-populated based on trainee being on a current/inactive programme membership.
Any impact on Leave manager / Accent and NDW reporting?
06/01:
- Mismatch of status between the list view and detail view
- List of Roles for Accent - Sue to provide
These are the 3 PAG processes that have been reviewed and are ready to be implemented which are not dependent on TIS developments.
I’ve copied in Kate as from the discussions at TOG and PAG it would seem sensible to follow a similar process to SOPs for implementation and review. I have spoken to the data leads so part of the PAG process will involve the data group suggesting how compliance can be checked and reported e.g if a processes requires a field to be completed, to report on whether the data has been entered.
The PAG group initially suggested 1st Jan for implementation but as it has taken some time to review I have amended this to 3rd February. No particular issues have been identified with the implementation of these processes.
ARCPIDT
New Starters
|
03/02: Ticket to restrict all except Site, Trusts, Programmes. - Ashley Ransoo, James Harris
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
There are a number of HEE TIS Admin that needs tidying up. This is the role that will have the permissions left on to manage all reference tables.
https://build.tis.nhs.uk/metabase/question/294
People Bulk Update tool
For the following purposes:
Update People records on TIS,
Add trainers, amend their approval status, start and end dates for which they are approved
Update roles assigned to People (Leave.Approver.NonAdministrator, SelfService.LeaveApplicant) that feeds into Accent Leave Manager
Update visa details on TIS by the immigration team
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
There are a number of Assessment records on TIS that do not have their curriculum sub-types recorded consistently. We are unable to tell whether this is legacy data from Intrepid or an issue on TIS that has introduced this.
The ticket below is to:
- Investigate whether this is a TIS issue and fix accordingly
- Re-sync the Assessment records so that the Curriculum sub-types are pulled through to the Assessment records.
| Jira Legacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gwil: Hi all, James and I have been discussing the GMC Programme Code and wanted to come up with a clear definition and purpose for the field (and how it relates to the Programme Number). Our initial thoughts were that the field is for identifying the GMC code for dual and sub specialties only. All other curricula attached to that programme should have the same GMC Programme Code as the Programme Number.
03/02:
Dual -
Sub-specialty -
To take forward proposal to GMC and feedback on the next.