Page Comparison

Oriel Integration:

Tasks created and summarised in the table here. 

Create an Oriel Integration Channel on Teams  - Done

To schedule a quick presentation of the Oriel trainees import process. - People SMLs, a message on General

05/02 AR: Will schedule on my return.

12/02 AR: Scheduled for 16/02 @ 11a.m, will be emailing People SMLs. - Done

• Programme names/numbers aren’t provided for Dental trainees, they’re created by Admins

• Discuss with Reubs on the next course of action.
• All tickets clarified, require the report to be looked at again to confirm there are still issues pending

3322:

DS: Duplicate issues to be fixed to reduce the numbers of missing details. - Update?

DS: Checking 120 items manually. To be completed asap. Follow up with Hicom.  

CL/IO: To identify which of those are current trainees records; who is in a current/future programme/placement?

AB: Which of those have self-service access?

IO to confirm - check whether there is a trainee is in a current or future programme membership or placement and re-do reports, update data leads

DS: ~7000 records found. 

Outcome posted on DQ channel:

1. check duplicate types v impact on TIS (ify)
2. confirm how many record types affected per type (ify)
3. confirm with DEV what fixes could be (reubs)
   - update vulnerabilities on TIS
4. fix hard data issues by type (data leads

1. / LOs)

IO - Records with duplicate GMC/GDC/PH numbers to be checked, confirm records affected per type. 

TISDEV - 3620 - Done

JH:

Assumption: Dental trainees to be any person record that has a GDC number which is not Null, N/A or blank

Total Number of Person Records: 13376
Number with a Start and Expiry Date: 622
Number with a Null Start or Expiry Date: 12754

% with valid dates: 4.65%
% without valid dates: 95.35%

TISDEV - 3363 - In Progress

JH/AB/CL/DS -

To get rid of the N/A for records that have a valid other registration number. We can only remove it for all if we are definitely not going to have person records which would not have an applicable reference number

I think the validation rule should stay the same

But what are we going to do with the practice manager records?

AR: To find out with ESR how they handle a GMC/GDC number of 'N/A' -

05/02: If the professional body detail is provided in the applicant file, then ESR would expect to see the registration number and the expiry date in the subsequent fields. Where a value of N/A is being passed, the assumption is no professional body is being passed therefore does not represent an issue for ESR. 

Next Steps:

CL/JH: To be written down of what each means and share with SMLs? - to be documented: Trainnees should have at least 1 registration number populated, if that is not known at the time the record is created, then populate one of the relevant registration numbers with 'Unknown' and the rest as 'N/A'. 

AB: PH numbers - what is the standard format? Not consistent across LOs.

JH: 2 PH schools for assigning the numbers, also not mandatory to have one - make this a non-mandatory field? - Ashley Ransoo Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) - to verify this on TIS. AR: Verified on production, PH number is not mandatory.

AR/CL: To discuss and feed into the design work for Absence.

05/02: Matt/Ashley/Claire have met and discussed on the templates for recording Study leave and costs/expenses which will feed into the solution design for TIS.

Claire - any update from Martyn Clarke (Lead BM for absence) with regards to the national process?

Trusts access to Intrepid and how they are currently recording study leave not necessarily the way forward for TIS. - To be clarified with Rob

Will be part of the workarounds for study leave recording this week

If you want to create a single row per person in the person table coontaining roles, this (or something like it) will need to be the case. The alternative would be to export person role as a separate table / view (this would be my preference). I would imagine that TIS stored person role as a separate table.
The ETL into the warehouse can setup the data more or less however we like. I would separate out role, as it gets messy packing lots of them into one field and it is tricky for users to handle.
John Thompson

Considerations for reports changes - Post on Data_Warehouse channel on slack to get clarification.

AB: To follow up with JT

Suggestion: Have a row per PersonID per role. Clarification on the Person table required.

For the teams that are using this field, check where the secondary sites are in the back end; check Teams for further feedback on usage

To be discussed and agreed with all regions:

• what should the standard usage process be?
• how should it be recorded?
• How many trainees does this affect?

AP/CL: Needs to be looked into for post MVP.

Workaround for MVP? e.g. comments box. To be discussed/prioritised on Woraround meeting this week.

Data leads to agree on the list. 

CL: List from Intrepid Consolidation to be sent - Done

Ify Posted the list for Data leads to have a look.

Data leads?