Data leads:
Discussion/Action
# | Discussion/Action | Responsible | Outcome | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Programme names/numbers aren’t provided for Dental trainees, they’re created by Admins | JH, AP, IO | Proposed Solution (JH)
Action: AP/IO to impact assess JH: Done mapping and need to do some more work and send to AP. AP has received James ssheet. More generally, we should look to standardise naming conventions around programmes (not just Dental) to be discussed separately Next to put on Microsoft Teams and get SMLs feedback - AP JH/AP - Setup call to briefly explain next week. - Was decided that it should be postponed for the moment on advice from James. IO/AP: Recommendation: show a concatenated display of the programme name in the dropdown list with the Local Office name? To check with DEV on the possible solutions. (P1) 19/02: AP/JH: Field limit for programme number? Check field validation(Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed)) Max number of characters is 20 including spaces / special characters
09/04: Sent to Andy, Programme number being changed as this was too long. 30/04: Leave on for next 2-3 data leads call. 03/09: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) to discuss this week in the Process meetings. | ON HOLD till post MVP launch
Revisit Middle of September 2018 due to other priorities. |
| 2 | Reports on Deleted records requested from Hicom. (Status of 'Delete' on Hicom but still 'Current' on TIS). (#intrepid_Integration slack channel conversation). | AP/IO | 08/05:Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed): Chase up with Martin. DS: In Intrepid, Programme is a hard delete, whereas Programme membership is soft delete. 14/05: AB sent details of report criteria to the Intrepid Analysis team. No response from them yet JW to set up meeting with Data Leads, BAs, POs and Reubs on how to manage deleted records on TIS in future. JH/AB: Checked the deleted records. Next step to flag what records on TIS are to be deleted. Send to CL/DS to check. Hicom has not provided the full requested set of deleted records but will follow. 04/06: Programme, Posts and Prog. memberships Id's send and TIS to action the delete next. Tickets are on Jira. Former user (Deleted) - check the priorities of those. 11/06: They are all P1's as they affect reporting, move up the BAU list. 18/06: awaiting updated/consolidated view of changes (IO) 02/07: Dev work has started, some of them have been done. (label of 'NDW UAT') 16/07: 'Deleted' tickets are in this sprint TISDEV-5125 23/07: Former user (Deleted), Jayanta Saha, Alice Thompson- Work in progress, will be carried on to the next sprint. To discuss at sprint planning. 30/07 - work progressing. 13/08: Check on which environment they are? 20/08: AB: Assessment to be verified - Metabase (assessment UAT database?). Curriculum membership verified and looks ok. 24/08: AR: 'Assessments UAT' database added to metabase. Alice has tested and will be updating the ticket with her findings. 10/09: Jayanta Saha has applied the script on UAT and waiting on Alice Thompson to be back to test further deletes to Assessment. | |
| 3 | Data/Field level analysis | All | IO: Suggested approach: 1. Sit with Chris and review the output he shared with DQ leads + delete report 04/06: Tickets being created 11/06: Former user (Deleted)to update? 18/06: reviewed with Data Leads, Reuben and Devs, updates to tickets underway and should be compete by COP tomorrow. Resource has been allocated to implement changes and I believe work has started on the tickets that are ready 16/07: on going refinement 23/07:Ify :
| |
| 4 | Resolve Duplicates - TISDEV-4841: Resolve the duplicate invalid GMC numbers, such as 'Retired,' and make them 'UNKNOWN' | Data leads | Discussed on DQ on 04/06:
04/06: The following has been agreed:
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 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 - TISNEW-1894 - Getting issue details... STATUS | |
| 5 | New NTN format work | AP/JH | 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. | |
| 6 | Post Funding - management of posts with multiple current post funding episodes | JW | 02/07:
16/07: Panos is implementing TISDEV-5030 in this sprint to correct this issue (note that posts with more than one current funding episode will show multiple records on the post list) 23/07: Will be carried over to the next sprint. 30/07 hopefully the work will be completed during this sprint. 13/08: work complete and will be released on Wednesday 20/08: First iteration released (episodes that are current (end date = today > or blank) to be shown in the first instance ). Next step, where there are more than 1 funding episodes for a post (whether through data quality issues or that is how the local office manage their post funding) 03/09: Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) - Do they want to see the historical funding episodes - currently an issue for LaSE? To be discussed on Tuesday's call. Although not visible on the UI, the historical episodes can be reported on from NDW. | |
| 7 | Post Funding - vision document | JH | 02/07: Post Funding
16/07: Document by James H to be shared with the Post and Funding Reporting group for initial comments. Final outcome is to be an agreed dataset to be recorded on TIS (aim is to meet national reporting requirements). 23/07: Review of James's document in progress, further discussions to then take place based on feedback from BMs. 30/07 National team involvement in the calls. Requirements seem reasonable. 13/08: Local Offices are having difficulty agreeing on the values for Post Funding Type. Naz is still waiting for all local offices to respond to the document created by James 20/08: Waiting for agreement/sign-off 03/09: JW: Replace 'Tariff' with 'HEE-Tariff' on current posts? - Jira Ticket to be created with and refined with the data leads. 10/09: TISNEW-1930 - Getting issue details... STATUS
| |
| 8 | Posts with no Local Office owner | All | 23/07:
| |
| 9 | Post specialty and sub-specialty confusion in TIS Interim | All | 23/07:
| |
| 10 | Identification and removal of Consultant data on TIS | All | 13/08:
Additional note - during my catch up with Hicom, a proposed solution from Hicom included looking at the role which a record is associated with (i.e. does the record have a role of 'DR in training' or 'GP Tutor' etc.). I am seeking assistance from the NDW Team to produce an output which shows all records and with what role they have (e.g. clinical supervisor, medical director, leave manager etc.). There is an option to work with Regional Data Quality Leads/Local Teams to confirm which roles are they actively using in TIS. Actions from the meeting:
Additional actions:
20/08: CN: ~20000 records potentially identified. Approx. half from KSS and NW. Removal of non-training grades to follow after removal of consultants - Create Jira ticket to be prioritised. 03/09: Validate 'survivor Ids' on TIS against Intrepid Ids for Leave manager and CPPS | |
| 11 | Dual ICM | JH | Dual ICM trainees having 2 Programmes at the same time can have a different NTN assigned to them at some point. This can potentially be an item to discuss at the Process Alignment meetings Rob is setting up. JH/Ian Barton:
The challenge is going to be getting accurate information in a timely manner from the TPDs, telling us when a trainee is moving placements so that we have accurate data for the trainee’s new training location, which specialty they are training in for that placement and therefore which NTN they are using. 03/09: Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) To be discussed at the Process Alignment meeting. | |
| 12 | Bulk Assessment | AR | Template: 10/09: Development for the functionality has completed, however the front end unit tests are being worked on in this sprint. | |
| 13 | Trust access - role logic | All / Andy Horton (Unlicensed) / James Harris | 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: 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. |
Complexity and volume - David may need to work with Dev in next sprint in order to prepare this. Prioritisation required.
0 Comments