Stakeholder feedback on stage environment per designated body
Recommendations: Admin user (depending on their role and local office permission) will be able to
Draft and Review a new Recommendation
Submit a Recommendation
Review previously drafted and submitted Recommendations
Concerns: Admin user (depending on their role and local office permission) will be able to
Review and update previously entered Concerns per Trainee
Add a new Concern to a Trainee’s record
Connections: admin user (depending on their role and local office permission) will be able to
Add a new connection via the Add Connection filter
Remove an existing connection via the Remove Connection filter
Review connections discrepancies via the Exceptions filter
Ignore/hide connections discrepancies that do not require any action via the Hidden filter
As you go through our stage environment, you might notice the following:
Recommendations:
The number of doctors(ALL DOCTORS, UNDER NOTICE, the number of doctors in our DB) might be different from your real number (the number you have in GMC connect) prod/current Reval TIS prod. This is because GMC staging are not refreshed frequently. This should not be an issue in the new Reval TIS prod
You might find some doctors not in your current training programme but was previously connected to you in your list of doctors (that mean you can still see them in your list of doctors). The reason might be because GMC staging are not refreshed frequently and the doctors are still connected to you in the GMC connect stage. (Check the Designated Body column to see the DB code if still connected to you. That column is fed by GMC connect stage). This should not be an issue in the new Reval TIS prod
You will notice that navigating a doctor’s information on TIS via ‘Programme history’ opens a new browser tab in TIS – This is an expected behaviour
In creating a recommendation, you will notice that the date format is American MM/DD/YYYY - We’ve raised a ticket
Page/Section | Feedback description | Name of user | Designated Body | MVP/Post MVP? | Comments | Additional Notes | Status(Done, In Progress, To Do and NR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommendations: ‘All Doctors’ and ‘Under Notice’ | The numbers not relating to individual DB These are displaying all reval doctors in steady of displaying per DB  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | Post MVP | To Do | ||
Recommendations: “ALL DOCTORS – 45366 UNDER NOTICE – 5525 | The numbers don’t match the number of trainees we have the system says “ALL DOCTORS – 45366 UNDER NOTICE – 5525” which is too many – is this again as not able to use API data? | Katy Jones | North West | Yes, Phil identified the same issue and we’ve created a ticket for it | NR | ||
Recommendations: Doctors not in training programme in a LO but still connected to the DB will appear under the DB. | Some Doctors who are no longer in our training programme are still connected to our DB though they were previously in our programmes. e,g Sidra Shaheed - 7060673, (Krishnamoorthy Kalaichelvan and Sehr Bhatti both appears under All doctors) , (Fariah Khan and Nyaradzai Sithole both appears Under Notice)   | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | This is because the doctor is still connected in stage (GMC connect stage) with Thames Valley which might be a different case in Prod. Because KSS would have connected the doctor to them in prod. No ticket is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: Doctors not in training programme in a LO but still connected to the DB will appear under the DB. | 7489026 – not currently connected to us but on the list of doctors – TIS record is unclear but looks like IDT to NW from Aug 2021 (also 7489026 shows as LDN but on our list). | Katy Jones | North West | This is because the doctor is still connected in stage (GMC connect stage) with Thames Valley which might be a different case in Prod. Because KSS would have connected the doctor to them in prod. No ticket is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: Under Notice | I could not be sure the reported ‘under notice’ set was accurate as, on following a doctor through to the staging revalidation area a chosen doctor (Aimee Tarryn Manicom) was NOT under notice. | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | Reasons:
No ticket is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: Navigating via ‘Programme History’ opens a new browser tab in TIS | Returning to a trainee in the staging area then navigating via ‘Programme history’ opens a new browser tab in TIS – is this the expected behaviour? TIS doesn’t do that at the moment, as far as I know. | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | Yes - that behaviour is expected No ticket is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: New windows when moving from Reval TIS to TIS Admin | Why does a new window open when selecting history, placements and Form R for a trainee? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2013 Phil raised similar issue Yes - that behaviour is expected Ade (12/07/2021) We can look at this at a point. I’ll raise a ticket to cover it. Katy (07/07/2021) - we can work with this however it is frustrating in terms of day to day work management | To Do | |
Recommendations: Submission data (In the current Reval TIS stage) and Submission due date (in the new Reval TIS stage) | Loop between New Reval and and TIS Admin. I could not work out where the submission dates were coming from. For example, Ben Tichler has a submission date of 24/02/2021 on the ‘under notice’ tab, but this doesn’t agree with the (staging area…..  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | For the new Reval TIS stage, it’s coming from GMC connect stage. The New Reval TIS stage is something we should be looking at. I want to assume there should be a loop between TIS Admin and the new Reval. I think this should be done for both stage and prod for the new reval an TIS Admin | Done | |
Recommendations: Incorrect GMC number search | Entering an obviously incorrect GMC code (e.g. ‘aaaaaaa’ or ‘1111111’) produced an error… Is this going to be improved, or remain generic?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-1755 28/07/2021: Invalid number. | Done | |
Recommendations: Creating a Recommendation | chose Ben Tichler and started by clicking ‘Create recommendation’. I chose to revalidate him in training and save a draft of it… Should this message be improved – seems a bit clunky?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | 'Y' is missing | Done | |
Recommendations: Creating a Recommendation | I tried typing in a valid date ‘17/07/2021’, however the buttons to proceed remained greyed out. It seems only calendar input is accepted.   | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | Yes- We need to change the format to the UK not American MM/DD/YYYY format | Done | |
Recommendations: Comments and Note | In the recommendation area now, there is only scope to make one or more comments. The current system has both Comments and Notes. Will this affect anything – where will the comments/notes from the old system appear in the new? | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-86 https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2133 https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2102 28/07/2021 Why do you need both? 'Notes' are against trainee and 'comment' against recommendation: | 22/09: Migration of historical data - Note - MVP | In Progress |
Recommendations: See others comments and Notes | Can we see each other’s comments and notes? | Nichola Attwood | North West | MVP | I want to assume Yes for users in the same DB. We need to check users thought on this as we’ve raised a ticket for this. https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-86 https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2133 https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2102 28/07/2021: At the moment ‘No’ . Notes can’t be seen at the moment but comments can be seen | In Progress | |
Recommendations: Non- Engagement | Tried a ‘non-engagement’ submission, came up with this rubric – action on me: is it correct?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | 28/07/2021Phil to check content and feedback to us | NR | ||
Recommendations: Deferral | When deferring can an option be approaching CCT (if CCT is within one year after revalidation date)? | Nicola Field | London | 28/07/2021: Deferral not exist for ‘other reasons’ GMC service user guide only recommended 2 options for deferral reasons and 8 sub-reasons for Insufficient evidence reason only. | NR | ||
Recommendations: Submission | I switched the confirmation switch and clicked Submit to GMC…oops Is this just an effect of the test system?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | We need to check why some submissions are going through and others are not in stage with the Missing /invalid Response Officer GMC reference number | Done | |
Recommendations: Filter/sorting | Are the filter options we asked for not to be available? | Katy Jones | North West | MVP/Post MVP? | Yes, we have a ticket created for it but not MVP. We can always improve/enhance recommendation as we move on with the filter Currently you can use filter for the following column:
Sortable columns are
https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-966 Filterable columns are:
https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-561 Ade (12/07/2021) MVP - Minimum Viable Product - this is the minimum elements we need to get out for users to be able to use the product rather than a high fidelity version of all the elements. We have captured this as part of what need to be done and it now depends on users to determine its priority. Katy (07/07/2021) - what does MVP stand for? If this is to be developed after go live not having filterable/sortable fields would be problematic when managing trainees at CCT and could mean we need to use a separate database (spreadsheet) | To be a priority after MVP 22/09: Filterable columns:
This will require moving the whole recommendation into elastic search ES just like what we did for connections because of the different sources of data. Column that should be sortable without refactoring are as follows:
CCT date | To Do |
Recommendations: Filter/sorting | Can we filter on all fields under all doctors/under notice | Nichola Attwood | North West | Already a Ticket | NR | ||
Recommendations: Filter/sorting | Filtering by programme name – we could not see this function, and this would be helpful, especially for London, when allocating to administrators. | Nicola Filed | London | Currently, you can bulk add administrators in recommendation. There is a ticket for filtering already | NR | ||
Recommendations: Filter | Can we filter on all fields in the under notice section? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Covered Above No at the moment. Only the following was agreed with Ify. Filterable columns are:
Ade (12/07/2021) Yes and it has been captured and a ticket created Katy (07/07/2021) - the lack of filter/sortable fields was raised on a number of occasions | NR | ||
Recommendations: Old Dates | Some of the submission dates are old e.g. 2015 is this just because not able to use API data at the moment? | Katy Jones | North West | Yes because it’s a stage environment and frequent refresh is not happening from GMC connect end No ticket is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: Bulk recommendation | Is there a way of seeing which recommendations have been and whether approved – can we do bulk recommendations as we could in the old module by moving to a review area? | Katy Jones | North West | Post MVP | We cannot do bulk recommendation at the moment(We can only do bulk add admin in recommendation at the moment) but we can do bulk connection | To be a priority after MVP | To Do |
Recommendations: Listed ‘ADMIN’ | Is the listed “ADMIN” the person who submits recommendations or last person to amend the record and how do we assign a reval officer. | Nichola Attwood | North West | I want to assume the Admin are the RV Officer/RO or delegated officer from the ROs ? To clarify further Yes you can use the tool to allocate admin and bulk allocate admin.  Ade (12/07/2021) Agreed and noted Katy (07/07/2021) - in NW the admin would be the Reval Officer assigned to a trainee but we would need to remain the same even if another Reval Officer made a recommendation for a trainee | NR | ||
Recommendations: Add Administrators | Allocating administrators – we couldn’t see how to allocate administrators. | Nicola Field | London | Ability to add Admin exist in the new the Reval. A demo is required | NR | ||
Recommendations: Trainee in Draft | If we put a trainee in draft where does it go and how is that shown | Nichola Attwood | North West | MVP | Yes: Recommendation can be saves as draft and should show in the summary page TIS status as Draft. Not implemented at the moment. There is a ticket to implement this https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-987  It will be saved as draft in the particular trainee details for edit  Ade (12/07/2021) recommendation in Draft will appear in the TIS status in the summary page. You should be able to filter if the filter ticket is implemented. Katy (07/07/2021) - to clarify there won’t be a separate area where we could see all draft recommendations? If not could we filter by this field? | Done | |
Recommendations: Submissions and deferrals date | Can we do bulk amendment of submission dates/revalidation submissions and deferrals? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2015 Need further clarification If you’re talking about ‘GMC Submission due date’ You will not be able to do that in the new service. This will be a post MVP work that needs to be discussed further. This update will continue to be on GMC connect …. On deferral date, you can choose a data but you cannot bulk amend at the moment. It will be something to look at in Post MVP  Ade (12/07/2021). Yes on GMC connect. We still need further discussion on ‘GMC Submission due date’ update. On Bulk recommendation, we’ve already implemented for connections and we can create the same logic for Recommendation. Katy (07/07/2021) - to clarify we would need to amend submissions and do any bulk recommendations in GMC connect? | To Do | |
Recommendations: Submission Process for London | The process for London and KSS is the specialty officers to do the first look, save in draft, then assign the Operations Manager(OM) to do the 2nd look and then the OM submits recommendation - we couldn’t see if this was possible to do with this TIS module. | Nicola Field | London | A recommendation can be saved in draft for users to review before it can be submitted by the user with the permission which is London’s case the Operations Manager (OM) | NR | ||
Recommendations: TIS STATUS/GMC STATUS |
| Katy Jones | North West | MVP | 
| The Outcome is the GMC Status. | Done |
Recommendations: TIS Status | What is TIS status, does this mean submission status? | Nichola Attwood | North West | MVP | See below what will be displayed as ‘TIS Status’ Ade (12/07/2021). Thanks. To be discussed in the user session before the ticket is implemented https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-987 Katy (07/07/2021) - can we discuss the terminology used at a TIS catch up as it is not clear/will likely cause some confusion | Leave for Katy to come back from AL | Done |
Recommendations: GMC/TIS ststus | Can you clarify what the difference is between GMC status and TIS status? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Katy raised similar issue | NR | ||
Recommendations: Historical Data | What’s happening with the history trail and previous comments? | Nichola Attwood | North West | MVP | We’re currently in this iteration investigating how to migrate historical data https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-1760 | Done | |
Recommendations: Front Front page format | As I have mentioned numerous times the format of the front page is not clear or user friendly – too much data on the page and sizing is very small in order to have all data on the page at the same time: | Katy Jones | North West | Post MVP | Looking at adding borders in row and column so that each one stand out a bit more | Priority | To Do |
Recommendations: Front Front page format | The screen is too small when zoomed to 75% so can see all fields – is this being amended in terms of accessibility? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Katy raised similar issue | Speak to Katy for clarity on this If column we might need to cut down the column list | NR | |
Recommendations: Time out | What is the timeout length for using the system as it would close down quickly previously and would like it extended? | Nichola Attwood | North West | It will be between 1 hr to 30 days as the token expires after 1 hour and token can be refreshed automatically for up to 30 days. We’re currently working on migrating login into another service so, we’ll be able to give a definite time when the migration is done | Ade to discuss the possibility of extension. Also need to check HEE policy on this. | NR | |
Recommendations: Summary page- border between train | View of front page is hard to read, can there be borders between each trainee or a way to differentiate. | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | To Do | ||
Recommendations: GMC outcome | What would the outcome show once GMC have authorised a revalidation? | Nichola Attwood | North West | See GMC outcome below | NR | ||
Recommendations: GMC outcome | Can we export all doctors or under notice lists? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TIS21-2025 Ade (12/07/2021) Thanks for the clarity. Katy (07/07/2021) - export the data into excel for example so we can view the data outside of TIS if required | Summary page export into excel. A priority as Post MVP | To Do |
Recommendations: Under investigation, sanction doctors | How do we know what the GMC position is and if they are under investigation, sanction etc. (currently tick in a list on GMC) | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP/MVP? | To Investigate: This is in GMC connect. Documented under concerns in the current Reval. Which is done manually from GMC connect. 22/09: Doctors on hold Discussion on priority of this requirement | To Do | |
Recommendations: Data Migration from 14th May | Gap in recommendation because of switch of APIs by GMC | Post MVP? | Not Required. | NR | |||
Concerns: Open Concern | Clicked on Concerns and could see what appears to be ALL concerns in HEE – is this the way it’s supposed to be?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | No. You should only see your DB concerns. The list of doctors seems to be all doctors in Thames Valley not all doctors in HEE | |||
Concerns: Open Concern | Clicked on first doctor on the ‘Open’ list (Jill Elizabeth Edwards) – can’t seem to find a concern relating to them. Or indeed any of the handful of doctors I chose. Am I doing something wrong? | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | My thought is, The ‘Open’ is showing the list of all doctors in Thames valley both with concerns and not with concerns. We need to have a discussion on how we want the following to be displayed
An investigating ticket is required on how to present this | ||
Concerns: Closed concern | The Closed list seems to be the same as the open list (1 – 20 of 1991). | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | That should not be A ticket required | ||
Concerns: Creating a concern | Accepted typed-in ‘date of incident’ of 01/01/2021, but a typed-in ‘date reported’ of 07/01/2021 was automatically ‘corrected’ to 01/07/2021 – is that required behaviour? This date was not accepted when I tried to move on to the next section (Trainee details) and I had to return and fix it by using the calendar | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | If you select the data from the calendar it’ll work fine but if you typed in the date that’s when the problem happens: A ticket is required T for date to reflect dd/mm/yyyy and not mm/dd/yyyy either you type in or use the calendar or….. A ticket required | ||
Concerns: Grade, site and employer | Where do the drop-down values come from? It seems to me that picking one (e.g. Specialty Training Year 6) could/should limit the following options (e.g. Site, Employer) or is this not straightforward/possible? | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | Need to investigate grades, sites, employer. A ticket is needed. A ticket required check if there is existing ticket | ||
Concerns: Grade | Grade – would these be applicable to trainee grades (at the moment this and all the other drop downs in trainee details are incorrect) | Nichola Attwood | North West | MVP | Ade (12/07/2021) Yes but they are currently not correct. A ticket required | ||
Concerns: Edit | However, on returning to edit the Concern, the follow up date was flagged in red as today (10/06/2021) and needed changing. I re-set it to 11/06/2021 as in the original save. | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | Need more clarification from Phil | |||
Concerns: Comment | Checking the files, the PDF was present, but the Comment had vanished. | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | MVP | A ticket required | ||
Concerns: Save concern |  On trying to save the Concern again, the ‘Concern saved’ message appeared, but the screen stayed on the final sheet… On returning to the Concern tab for this doctor – there are now three concerns! Is that the way you expect it to work?  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | There is an existing ticket to resolve that issue . The number of times you click save the number of concerns create | |||
Concerns: Saved concerns | Opening each of the three Concerns showed a follow-up date of 10/06/2021 which, of course, threw an error. And all had lost any comments that had been added. I tried setting one of the open Concerns to ‘Closed’ – not only did it require a follow-up date in the future, and the comments had disappeared, but it was still open after I saved it – see final entry below…  | Phil Skeldon | Thames Valley | If you close a concern, it’s an edit and you need to follow through the journey and save before the update is saved but the issue currently is that at the moment you click save another concern is created which is a bug to be fixed. Which is to be fixed. | |||
Concerns | Who would use this – are you aware if other regions use this section? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Ade (12/07/2021) I’ll ask other region the question. Do you use this section in the NW? | |||
Concerns | Can you export the data if used? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | Ade (12/07/2021) We can add this element | ||
Concerns | Will all placement sites be added to list for example being prepopulated by the TIS placement? Can it be manually overridden if in another site? Can you free type sites? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | Ade (12/07/2021) These are element we can always consider. | ||
Concerns | If adding concerns, can we put retrospective dates as we can only add for one month at the moment (can’t select an earlier date than 9 June) | Nichola Attwood | North West | Ade (12/07/2021) I think the logic in the new reval allows retrospective dates for ‘date of incident’ and ‘Date Reported’ but you can’t add passed date for ‘follow up date’ | |||
Concerns | Follow up – who does this go to and where would it be flagged? This is a mandatory field and not all would need to be followed up? | Nichola Attwood | North West | Ade (12/07/2021)There is no Follow up but follow up date. This goes to no one as it remains with the Admin that created the concern. | |||
Concerns | Can there be a concerns flag in the recommendation front screen so not missed as having to check all 3 tabs when making a recommendation | Nichola Attwood | North West | Post MVP | Ade (12/07/2021) We can add this element | ||
Concerns | Can the TODO notification be reworded as it isn’t a clear/consistent message | Nichola Attwood | North West | Ade (12/07/2021) Where is the TODO element in concern? | |||
Connections: Disconnection | When disconnecting a trainee, does this feed through to GMC Connect? | Nicola Field | London | Yes, it feeds through to GMC connect | |||
General Feedback: GMC Connect Refresh | To get a bit of recent data in TIS- Reval stage, GMC will need to refresh their stage | Further discussion required on this. |
Stakeholder feedback using demo-user login common to all users
Page / section | Feedback description | User | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Recommendation - Deferrals No new story required | I may have missed a discussion around this however should the reasons for deferral not match the GMC list | Katy Jones | The reasons have been taken from the new GMC API document, they will be implemented in line with this. |
| 2 | Recommendation - Deferrals No new story required | Would a deferral recommendation show the reason and comments when under notice again? Is there an example GMC number of a dummy record where a deferral was made previously can only see ones where they were revalidated previously and there are no comments with them. | Katy Jones | This scenario can be created in the staging environment, as a new recommendation against any of the dummy trainee records |
| 3 | Recommendation - Deferrals No new story required (TBC) | Is the approved below [GMC outcome column on revalidation history table in detailed view] to show approved by GMC or approved by TIS & submitted to GMC | Katy Jones | To be discussed further, unclear which fields this refers to |
| 4 | Recommendations - Revalidation logic Story created Epic: Recommendations |
| Lisa Edwards | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TISNEW-5177 ify.onyenokweorhiunu (Unlicensed) reminder to update screen interaction. |
| 5 | Recommendations - Revalidation logic Story created Epic: Recommendations |
I am not sure this is worded correctly - if we are changing a due date it has to be a minimum of 120 days ahead (Same logic as deferring). Will amending/bringing forward a submission date now be a function available on TIS as previously we weren't certain GMC API would allow this. | General | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TISNEW-5178 ify.onyenokweorhiunu (Unlicensed) reminder to update screen interaction. |
| 6 | All summary pages Story created Epic: Create a version within Recommendations, Concerns & Connections |
| Ify | |
| 7 | All summary pages Story created Epic: Create a version within Recommendations, Concerns & Connections |
| Ify | https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TISNEW-5200 ify.onyenokweorhiunu (Unlicensed) reminder to update screen interaction. |
| 8 | All summary pages Story created Epic: Create a version within Recommendations, Concerns & Connections |
| Ify | |
| 9 | All summary pages Story created Epic: Upgrade of Revalidation - dependency on TISNEW-5196 |
| Ify | |
| 10 | All summary pages BUG created |
| General | |
| 11 | All detail sections Story created Epic: Create a version within Recommendations, Concerns & Connections |
| Ify | To be discussed w/Stakeholders |
| 12 | All summary pages BUG created |
| Ify | |
| 13 | All summary and detail pages BUG created |
| Ify | |
| 14 | Concerns detail (doc upload) BUG created |
| Ify | |
| 15 | Concerns detail Story created Epic: Concerns |
| Ify | |
| 16 | Recommendation subreason list for insufficient evidence reason New Story created Epic: recommendations (see comments column) | For the subreason “insufficient evidence reason” - we have 'The doctor is subject to an ongoing process' as one of the eight subreasons on stage (which is not part of the GMC's listed subreasons) but 'Significant events' (which is part of the GMC's listed subreasons) is missing on the list on stage | Ade | |
| 17 | Recommendation buttons working intermittently BUG created Epic: Recommendations (see comments column) | Save Draft, recommend submit to GMC buttons don’t seems to work well or work intermittently | Ade | |
| 18 | Recommendation: Reason list Bug Created Epic: Recommendations | GMC list 1. Insufficient evidence for a positive recommendation 2. The doctor is subject to an ongoing process Stage list
Issue: ' for a positive recommendation' is missing for Insufficient evidence on stage Ify.Onyenokwe-Orhiunu (Unlicensed) What is your thought? Let me know if we need a ticket.
| Ade | Agreed Adewale Adekoya , a bug will be created. |
| 19 | Under Notice Story created | Both Red highlight and un-highlighted colours are appearing for trainees under notice. Trainees under notice should all be highlighted red.  Story: As a Reval Admin, I want to be able to view a flag against trainees who are under notice, so that I know at a glance who is under notice versus not” AC Given the trainee status = under notice When the admin views the trainee record in the summary view Then it should have a red flag Given the trainee status is not = under notice When the admin views the trainee record in the summary view Then it should not have a red flag | Ade | To be looked at when we have the API sorted - with real data. |
| 20 | Recommendations detail Epic: Recommendations Bug created | On revalidation submission, the button is called Recommend - it should be labelled “Make recommendation” | Lisa Edwards | |
| 21 | Concerns list Epic: Concerns New story created | Concerns section - is the list meant to be a list of all doctors or a list of all doctors with a concern logged (this would make more sense). If so there needs to be a ‘add new concern’ option on this page rather than having to go into each doctors record first. Story: Display header filter for “All Doctors” & “Doctors with concerns” | Lisa Edwards | |
| 22 | Concerns list Epic: concerns New bug created | Also re concerns - clicking on individual doctor brings up a different doctors record. Is this just because the data is all jumbled or is it a mapping issue - needs to be right otherwise all sorts of issues! Bug to confirm whether there is an issue with data mapping when real data has been integrated | Lisa Edwards | This may be a duplicate - confirm before creating new ticket |
| 23 | Concerns detail Epic: Concerns New stories created (x3) | Concerns - under trainee details part - where is the Grade/Site/Employer data pulled from - is this all of their previous/current post data - with the idea being we pick the post/employer it relates to? If so this is good Story: restrict drop down to current / past grades for trainee Story: restrict drop down to current / past sites for trainee Story: restrict drop down to current / past employers for trainee | Lisa Edwards | Yes, that will be the case https://hee-tis.atlassian.net/browse/TISNEW-5310 |
| 24 | Concerns & Recommendations detail screens Epic: Concerns, Recommendations New bug created | Add comment box (on submission section and concerns) - is not very obvious/user friendly. Could this be improved pls? Could it be placed underneath the initial comment rather than at the top of the page Bug: move the add new comment button lower down on the screen | Lisa Edwards | |
| 25 | Recommendations detail / summary No new story required | on an individual recommendation - should Outcome and Submission status match? | Lisa Edwards | Status mapping can be viewed here - GMC statuses v TIS statuses |
| 26 | Recommendations No new story required | Navigation - once in a particular doctors record, can't easily go back to the main list without having to go up to main Revalidation Tab. Has this already been captured above - the breadcrumb request?? | Lisa Edwards | Yes, the breadcrumb will help with this |
| 27 | Recomendations TBC if new story required | When I click on assessments/Form R Part B/ placements to see how they display it takes me back to full list is that correct? | Katy Jones | Links out to other areas of the site are still to be developed |
| 28 | Connections TBC if new story required | I can’t access the connections tab – is this for another sprint? | Katy Jones | Connections tab from within recommendations has yet to be implemented |
| 29 | General TBC if new story required | I have to have the screen at 67% to view all columns this is OK for me but some may struggle with this – concern re equality & diversity and ease of access. | Katy Jones | TBC versus HEE standards |
| 30 | Recommendations No new story required | The deferral sub reasons don’t replicate those in GMC connect | Katy Jones | To be discussed with GMC as they have advised a set of new reasons / sub-reasons, but not reflected in GMC Connect |
| 31 | Recommendations Existing stories to be re-prioritised | When I click “revalidation” then “recommendations” it is the under notice list – could the titles be clearer – where do ones we have queued for submission go – is there a 2 step process or we press revalidation in “under notice” and it goes straight to GMC? | Katy Jones | We’ve discussed including some level of workflow, and are planning to implement a new column which will allow you to filter/view specific states |
| 32 | Recommendations New bug required | List screen:
| Ify | |
| 33 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 34 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 35 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 36 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 37 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 38 | Recommendations New bug required | Detail screen:
| Ify | |
| 39 | Connections New bug required |
| Ify | |
| 40 | Connections New bug required |
| Ify | |
| 41 | Concerns New bug required |
| Ify | |
| 42 | Concerns New bug required |
| Ify | |
| 43 | Recommendations New story required | Display “Managing team” as a new column on summary list view | Lisa Edwards | To be validated with London teams |
| 44 | Recommendations New bug required | Defer 'Choose a date' starts from Nov 2020 | Ade | |
| 45 | Recommendations New bug required | Defer 'Save draft' and 'Make recommendation' not working | Ade | |
| 46 | Recommendations New bug required | Submitted Recommendation can be edited and saved as draft and re-submitted | Ade | |
| 47 | Recommendations New bug required | Can't differentiate between submitted recommendation and saved draft | Ade | |
| 48 | Recommendations No action | Revalidation submission - the button is called Recommend - should be called Submit or Make Recommendation? - This has been actioned | Katy Jones | N/A |
| 49 | Concerns Confirm ticket number | Concerns section - is the list meant to be a list of all doctors or a list of all doctors with a concern logged (this would make more sense). If so it could be helpful to have an ‘add new concern’ option on this page rather than having to go into each doctors record first – note we wouldn’t use this section in the NW | Katy Jones | The list is due to be enhanced to just those with an existing concern - this will be something we update asap ahed of go live. |
| 50 | Concerns No action required | Also re concerns - clicking on individual doctor brings up a different doctors record This has been actioned | Katy Jones | N/A |
| 51 | Concerns | Concerns - under trainee details part - where is the Grade/Site/Employer data pulled from - is this all of their previous/current post data - with the idea being we pick the post/employer it relates to? If so this is good | Katy Jones | Yes |
| 52 | Concerns Confirm ticket number | Add comment box (on submission section and concerns) - is not very obvious/user friendly. Could this be improved pls? Perhaps it cculd it be placed underneath the initial comment rather than at the top of the page on an individual recommendation - should Outcome and Submission status match? | Katy Jones | Agreed, there is an existing ticket to address this |
| 53 | General Confirm ticket numbers | Navigation - once in a particular doctors record cant easily go back to the main list without having to go up to main Revalidation Tab. Has this already been captured above - the breadcrumb request?? | Katy Jones | There will be 2 enhancements to address this:
|
| 54 | Recommendations | I located a trainee – Krishna via name search – I clicked edit recommendation – I selected defer due to insufficient evidence then colleague feedback – I then clicked the date box and a red comment appeared with a eligible date field so I selected the 1st date given (14 Jan 2021) – then selected make recommendation and received an error message but I selected a date generated by the system | Katy Jones | [IO] This is due to a known issue around RO’s not being present for all trainee test data in the system, it’s being investigated as to how we may be able to fix it in stage. this was the trainee identified by you to use for HENW would it still be that the record can not be tested fully? Also when can we test all the aspects of the system before “go live” [IO] I will check back with the team to confirm if the issue has been resolved, and also share a new set of trainees to use for testing. We’ll let you know once the site is fully ready for testing. |
| 55 | Recommendations | When I select a trainee I can’t then click to view their information e.g. pogramme history it takes me back ot the main list | Katy Jones | [IO] This functionality has not yet been built With regards to the response to 55 - will this be ready for “go live”? [IO] Yes |
| 56 | Recommendations | It looks like a deferral of 60 days is “allowed” to be made in the new TIS revalidation module however the GMC have advised it is a minimum deferral 120 days – please could you confirm that this has been addressed and amended | Katy Jones | We have now changed the logic to fit the 120 - 364 day rule. |
| 57 | Connections | With regards to managing connections will we retain the same “page” as now not the one in the new TIS module which doesn’t replicate the current one? Also when will we be able to “ignore” connections e.g. for our non-trainee doctors I now know this has not yet been developed | Katy Jones | Not yet developed; update will be provided once complete. |
| 58 | Connections | How do we view information for trainee who have disconnected from our DB? | Katy Jones | Each of the trainees who have been previously connected to you will be available via all 3 lists (Recommendations, Connections & Concerns) in a read-only format. |
| 59 | General | How do we assign a record to a revalidation team member? We split our workload in the NW by specialty due to the numbers – there is an admin column but unsure how we assign | Katy Jones | We can demo on the next review call. |
| 60 | General | Will we be able to sort and/or filter other than by submission date e.g. using CCT date, programme etc? | Katy Jones | Yes, but it is a low priority to amend these sort/filter options ahead of go live |
| 61 | General | What does the “last updated” column refer to? | Katy Jones | The last time a record has been updated. |
| 62 | Connections | What is the “exceptions queue” un the connections section | Katy Jones | [IO] Exceptions queue will display all records with a discrepancy. |
| 63 | Connections | will the add and remove connections pages just show ones that are identified in the logic as discrepancies i.e. not connected to HENW but in a programme or connected to HENW but not in a programme | Katy Jones | [IO] Add Connections filter will display records with no connection; Remove Connections filter will display records with existing connections; exceptions queue will display all records with a discrepancy. |
| 64 | Connections | Will we be able to see none HEE connections - in the test it only shows HEE connections at the moment | Katy Jones | [IO] Can you please clarify what’s meant by “none HEE connections”? [KJ a designated body other than HEE] |
| 65 | Connections | Some connections are on twice (6053585) but appear identical - the last 2 connections - is this a discrepancy or for a specific reason? | Katy Jones | [IO] We’ll investigate and confirm |
| 66 | Recommendations | Will all recommendations show in this field from HEE and elsewhere? | Katy Jones | [IO] Can you please provide more info on this? [KJ so ones not from a HEE DB] |
| 67 | Connections | Hide LDN from DBC list in “update connections” | Nicola Field | [IO] The staging DBCs are not configured yet; this work will be completed when the module is completed in Prod. |
| 68 | Connections | Add History | [IO] In current sprint (07/Dec) | |
| 69 | Managing connections | I have just watched the demo on how to do bulk connections - how will the list be displayed as there seemed a lot of clicking to get to the page - who will appear on this page and can we see a clear page for our areas to test robustly before we approve - this can’t be done with 4000. | Katy Jones | [IO] demo will be presented in Review 08/Dec; it’s best to watch than describe here. [KJ is that the review 16/12 I watched the one from last tie and couldn’t follow hence my queries] |
| 70 | Managing connections | What is the “exceptions queue” as this has the same trainees as the other two tabs. | Katy Jones | [IO] All logic can be reviewed here as requested last week -Connections Rules - Summary there are multiple triggers for a trainee record being moved to review queue and these have yet to be built. Anything you can see there is not a true reflection of the logic to be applied. [KJ - is the exceptions queue is for those who need to be reviewed as declined by the GMC? Will we just see add/remove for ones identified by the system logic not all connected trainees? |
| 71 | Managing connections | I increased the screen size to 90% and then half the data is no longer fitting on the page – is this being addressed? I couldn’t see the start and end date when at this size but when smaller is equally hard to see as so small | Katy Jones | This is something that has to be resolved in future. [KJ]- will it be resolved for “go live”? |
| 72 | Assigning Admin | Thank you for the demo. To assign we would need to filter by specialty - this doesn’t appear possible in the demo site will this be available after “go live” and if so when can we test this or else we will struggle to assign trainees to the relevant admin person | Katy Jones | To be built as an enhancement in future and may not be possible before go live. |
Add Comment