01/10/2018

Proposed Solution (JH)

• 3 letter use the prefix of the local office + 3 digit acronym based on specialty
• 3 digit specialty acronym should be consistent across all

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) TISDEV-3767-Add indicator to drop downs to highlight "ownership" of values to the userTO DO

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

• favoured approach is to change the programme number <max limit (Alice Thompson / Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed))  see dental spreadsheet prepared by JH

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 Alignment meetings. (21/09)

10/09: Invites sent imminently by Rob for prep work to take place ahead of the meetings. 

IO: Suggested approach:

1. Sit with Chris and review the output he shared with DQ leads + delete report
2. identify areas of concern
3. coordinate through Reubs/Ashley to fix areas of concern
4. re-test later on versus DQ analyses

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 : 

• 1. missing fields from NDW and TIS identified
  the tickets written and being worked on
• 2. I'm currently looking into discrepancies between Intrepid , TIS and NDW where fields exist, but data appears to be inconsistent
  
  30/07 Call today to discuss.
• 13/08: Ify handed over to the POs and Ashley - work to be looked at when capacity/demand allows

• 03/09: NE user reported that sites can be changed on the UI within the placement to a non-related post site. Joanne posted the message on Teams to follow their LO process. (related ticket). Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) - To be brought up at process alignment meeting. 

  Process Alignment

  Will be added as an item on the PAG (Process Alignment Group) list.

Discussed on DQ on 04/06:

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

04/06: The following has been agreed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/09: DS confirmed this is a trainee on his list too -  TISNEW-1894 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

Output of Round 1 of de-duplication:

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

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

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

24/09:  TISNEW-2057 - Getting issue details... STATUS  - DS to send the rules to add to the ticket. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JH will put together a Tableau report for NTNs.

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

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

24/09: IDG taking place this week. 

02/07: 

• TIS to show only one funding record for a post - current and where there are two current TIS shows only the one with the most recent start date
• Where there are multiple current episodes ask the local offices if this is by accident or design
• If by accident remove/update the appropriate record in the database
• If by design this requirement will need to be fed into the future requirement document for consideration

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.

10/09: Joanne Watson (Unlicensed): Yes to the above - ticket created TISNEW-2032 (Sprint 60)

17/09: The information can be accessed from NDW so not an overall business requirement at the moment. 

24/09: To follow up late October. 

02/07:

 Post Funding

• Process around Vacant posts
• Reporting aspect
• Meeting organised by Nazia AKHTARto discuss

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  

• 'Tariff' = 'HEE Funded - Tariff'
• 'Trust' = 'Trust Funded'
• 'MADEL' = 'HEE Funded - Non-Tariff ' 

To be taken to the Process Alignment Meeting for further discussion. - Sub-division details.

Another type for OOP?

17/09: TISNEW-1930 is ready for dev. 

24/09: TISNEW-1930 is in current sprint. 

23/07:

• Spreadsheet shows the Current and Inactive posts on TIS that have no local office owner
• Solution from James H is to source local office owner in the following priority:
  • Post Programme
  • Post Prefix
  • Post Trust - using Trust of the Site rather than the employing or training body
• Next step is to agree the above, find the local owners and then add to ticket for inclusion in a sprint
  
  30/07 - James to do the necessary report.
• 13/08: report created and the vast majority of the posts now have a derived local office. However in a small number of cases the derived owner is in fact old deanery. DQ leads have been asked to confirm which local office these posts belong to now. 
• 03/09: David's spreadsheet on DQ channel. Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) Ticket-up. Some of the posts have old Deaneries and some nulls.  
• 10/09: Gwilym and David have posted their versions of the spreadsheet on DQ channel. The following still needed: South Thames, North Thames, KSS Deanery (9RXX prefix) - Chris Norman (Unlicensed), Leicestershire - James Harris   
• 17/09: Follow up on DQ channel for confirmation on remaining ones.
• 24/09: - Ashley Ransoo Create ticket - what priority should we give to this? - BV of 4
  • South Thames - Chris Norman → South Thames Deanery
  • North Thames - Chris Norman → North Thames Deanery
  • KSS Deanery (9RXX prefix) → Kent, Surrey and Sussex Deanery
  • Leicestershire - James Harris →  Health Education England East Midlands

01/10:  TISNEW-2110 - Getting issue details... STATUS

23/07:

• James H to describe please  
• Schedule an investigation task for a dev to look at the BE and FE on TIS.
• Raise a story/bug, James Harris/ Alice Thompson- could you send some examples please? To be prioritised on sprint planning as a high priority. (cc Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed), Joanne Watson (Unlicensed))
• 30/07 - this development is in the current sprint. Simon will be working on it.
• 13/08: carried over into this sprint (Sprint 55)
• 20/08: To be looked at sprint planning
• 03/09: Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) -  Issue found when running reports, if the specialty is a sub-specialty, it does not come through. To be prioritised for Sprint 57.  TISNEW-170 - Getting issue details... STATUS
• 10/09: Paul to liaise with JH/AB on follow up queries.
• 17/09: AR: Follow up with Paul on the ticket. 
• 24/09: He's spoken to James. Paul needs to pick this up with NDW next.
• 01/10: Paul has posted an update against the ticket, can this be reviewed and agree the next step forward. 

13/08: 

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

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

Objective:

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

Email conversation excerpts: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TISNEW-1987 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

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

17/09:

JW: 

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

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

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