TIS - ESR Meeting 04/04/2019 Phone call

Attendee:

Craig Elton - ESR
Pavitra Paniker - ESR
Adewale Adekoya - TIS

Number	Description	Issue Reference in Log	TIS Ticket	Priority Assigned	Impact assessment of issue

1	Duplicate applicant records	Issue 8	TISNEW230- Now TISNEW-2062 - Applicants being exported in Duplicate for some positions triggered by ESR 04/04/2019 Chris already started work on this. ESR working on getting email notification sent to TIS on duplicates	1	This is a long running issue that was first raised on 4/10/2018. Duplicates were created on ESR causing confusion to the users on which application to progress. ESR Workaround is in place which quarantines duplicates based on set parameters. But this is a temp fix- not a complete soution. There is a risk that parameters used to idnetify duplicates may not be correct or may not consider all scenarios or deduce legitimate repetition of applications. Genuine applictaions may be getting quarantined. Hence this needs to be nipped / corrected at the source.

2	Missing Applicant records Wye valley - 30 missing County Darlington- Missing in Host West Suffolk -50 Missing New	Issue 11	TISNEW-2826 - ESR - Host positions with status of IMPORTED_AND_EXCLUDED to be amended (Added to Sprint -27 March 2019) COMPLETED on 2 April 2019- what does Completed mean ?Has this status been done away with. 04/04/2019 Completed and already in live environment. Ade emailed the examples used in the investigation to ESR to check from their end and get back to us if any issue 2. TISNEW-2485-ESR Investigation - Missing applicants - not exported from TIS to ESR (Added to Sprint -27 March 2019). 4/04/2019 In the current sprint and TIS team looking at this. On Wye Valley list of missing applicants: Ade to give the call ID - 168441 to Anita/Naz to check if the list was added to the incident number	1	Long running issue identified in 7/11/2018. For every ocurrence of missing applicants this should be assigned priority 1 as this is affecting end user experience . It is a failure of the interface in performing its fundamental function of loading applicants. Type 1: missing host applications . Lead applications exist. Type 2: Imported and Excluded status - Type 3: Misisng because of failed validation at ESR end hence rejected (Postcode issue) Type 4: Others ? New! West Suffolk - 50 Missing- reported on 2/04/2019. These applications are misisng - April rotation -high priority

3	manual export of applicants on TIS	Issue 7	TISNEW1311 now TISNEW-2871 -Add interface for manual export of users to ESR 04/04/2019 Ade: This is not an issue but an enhancement which still needs to be refined with the Product Owners and users. Ashley had re-purposed the ticket now – TISDEV – 5561 : “As a Local Office Admin I Want to manually export Applicants to ESR So That I can reconcile applicants that have not been received by ESR” The idea is to help an incorrect application on TIS to be corrected and then to be marked for export by the end user but the user journey/s for this is yet to be refined. This is not an alternative/workaround to the problem that currently exist on ESR where loading of applicant fails on ESR for some reasons which is not with TIS. PAV/Craig: To prioritise and also see if they can send us some examples.	?	Ash please provide more detail about this ticket and why it was raised.?? ??On the face of it this is a functionality that could help an incorrect application to be corrected and then to be marked for export by the end user (this is over and above the automated batch process that runs and batches the applicantions to be exported to ESR)- But this is my guess? Can you explain what the outcome of this ticket was supposed tobe?

4	reporting on DNC exceptions	Issue 33	TISNEW-2698- Confirmation of Notification success/failure Records received from ESR to be captured and made reportable 04/04/2019 In the backlog	2	This should have been built into the TIS exception reporting process. The DCC file or confirmation carries the issues - feedback on the DNC/ DNF. However TIS exception reporting does not look at this currently and hence the exception reporting is incomplete or provides only a partial picture. This is necessary for end users / local offices to be able to resolve issues as one of the big problems we have is that end users feel helpless or constrained by the lack of information to resolve issues.

5	DNF files	Issue 33	TISNEW-2778- Produce Full Notification Files (DNF) for all Local Offices after 14/03. 04/04/2019 For refinement 2. TISNEW-2872 - Investigation - DNC outdated records- updated in Log 05/04/2019 In the backlog	3	This is needed to refresh the information on the MEDROT. But first TIS need to review the DNF/DNC processes. There is a batch of incorrect / outdated information coming through in the DNC files. TIS needs to send us delete indicators for the records that are outdated or to be removed but that is not observed. Hence ESR Medical rotation report (MEDROT) has accumulated old outdated records from rotations in 2018, 2017 etc which are confusing to the end user. These MEDROT reports - ESR notifications are fundmaental to workforce staff managaing the rotations but they are based on the information and the quality of information on the DNC and DNF. Issue 1: outdated information issue 2: incorrect information on the DNC Issue 3: misisng notiifcation for Host trusts-while notification for lead trusts exists.

6	Job share tickets	issue 32	TISNEW-2774 - Investigation on handling multiple applicants per deanery number in the DNF/C Files 04/04/2019 In the Backlog	3	Medical Rotation report is not showing the information for the trainees in a job share. This is because the DNC/ DNF that underpins the production of the Medrot does not provide information for job share trainees as a set. Again this is a gap in the medical rotation spreadsheet and needs to be addressed as London and other trusts will rely on these reports and notiifcations and will raise issue if this is incomplete.

7	New !NINO missing and the Data quality of the GMC and the DOB is poor. Payroll affecting	Issue 42	04/04/2019 Ade: If this is what the user has entered, it is not a problem with TIS or the Interface, it is just how the data has been entered on TIS. The interface could not have made that decision for them. Actions: Naz/Anita/ESR: To follow up with Cathy who is the Oriel Project Manager in order to find solution to NINO Other aspect to the issue: Hi Pav ,Craig and Anita/Naz: I forgot to state that, don’t you think the GMC/ DOB/First name/ Surname issue should also be raised with Cathy instead of TIS team? These are information that comes from Oriel	1	Matching issue: In some cases there is an old employee record and a new employee record in ESR. For payroll purposes the application from TIS should match with the new employee record. It isnt matching correctly because of data quality issues, misisng NINO orother issues. Application from TIS has associated with the old employee record when it should have associated with the new record in ESR.NUTH: Nottingham University Hospital Trust : Matching with old employee record because the applicant from TIS does not contain the NINO. Hence ESR-IBM unable to match. It looks for the GMC reg but doenst find that in the new employe erecord either. Hence it cant match therefore it matches with the next best which is the Ex employee record where the GMC reg is there or it creates a new applicant. No NINOs have been sent for 8 records and the DOB observed is erroneous(18000101) that has caused issues at ESR end where the applications haven’t matched with the employee and new applicant record created in ESR. This has caused issues for the Trust users. (email sent on 01/04/2019 -2019 April rotation issues)

TIS - ESR Meeting 14/03/2019 in Sheffield

Attendee:

Victoria Hartland - ESR
Craig Elton - ESR
Pavitra Paniker - ESR
Nazia Akhtar - TIS
Chris Mills - TIS
Adewale Adekoya - TIS
Tayo Okuyedi

In table below are issues raised at the meeting with the details. I have created the Actions/Comments' column to give up to date findings

The table shows issues raised at the meeting with the details. Please Note: text in red are actions

Issues	Details	Actions/Comments
RTC	ESR queried about the details sent back in the RTC file. Enquired about whether post level details processing could be included in the RTC.	Ade to investigate Ade investigated and see below for my findings: The current RTC file sent back to ESR has File level details. It indicates whether a RMT file has been received and successfully processed at TIS end. At the time the interface was build, this was discussed with Pav/Victoria on the level of details that should be in there as the specification provided did not have that detail. In order to extend the level of details to post level details, it will require extending the interface. Also we’ll require what sort of Post details we need in the file .
DNC	ESR needs Notification Confirmation files - DCC - send to NWD - for ESRto have access	There is a ticket which is - TISNEW-2698 already in the backlog and need to be prioritised .
Error Reports	ESR wants a view of all the error reports Missing Mandatory Fields - Trainees with missing mandatory ESR fields for future placements on TIS Unmatched Deleted DPNs - Deleted positions on ESR but CURRENT on TIS Unmatched Pending DPNs- .Mismatch of ESR DPNs against TIS NPNs, i.e. DPN's incorrectly entered on ESR APC warnings - Warnings generated by ESR e.g. missing GMC end date, nationality does not match etc	Create your reports via NDW- Tableau - Naz may have to look at this from TIS end and decide who to give access
Duplication	TIS sending us the same information again and again and ERS duplicating the details	ESR- to send Chris samples. ESR have a temporary solutions in place – ESR keeps sending us the same 'positions' again and again – Problem should be resolve at source (recommendation). The temporary solution is working as well as far as we’re aware. A ticket already created - TISNEW-2062 Already in the backlog and need to be prioritised .
Post Code	Joined together post codes from TIS. ESR only accept 8 characters in this field and TIS allows free text	Ade to investigate Ade investigated and email Pav the following questions which post code finder ESR is using, if any? can ESR look from their end on solutions; e.g. extending 8 characters, using text format etc? are you talking about UK post codes? What sort of validation is ESR using to validate post codes? there is a ticket for the trimming of leading and trailing spaces - TISNEW-2819, should we just keep it at this or there is more to the issue? Pave Response of 21/03/2019 in Amber which post code finder ESR is using, if any? Quick Address System supplied by Experian can ESR look from their end on solutions; e.g. extending 8 characters, using text format etc? 8 characters, spaces are counted are you talking about UK post codes? The validation we do is as specified below. There is no added intelligence to check if UK or not. What sort of validation is ESR using to validate post codes? 8 characters, spaces are counted as a character there is a ticket for the trimming of leading and trailing spaces - TISNEW-2819, should we just keep it at this or there is more to the issue? This could be useful to ensure that postcodes don’t deviate from the format. Note: There is an existing ticket on this issue and needs to be prioritised and further discussions may be required with ESR team. The issue log was sent to Pav to provide a priority and order and the ticket did not appear on the list sent back to us.
Some trust not using TIS-ESR interface	Typical example is St' Helen and Knowsley using Trac - with over 9000 trainees.	To be considered during the bi-directional solution. Maybe the bi-directional solution needs to be flexible enough to accepting GMC number and NTN if possible
Monitoring Tools	Need a two way tools to monitor ETL. Something that will work for both TIS and ESR. TIS already have a tool to monitor ETL but might need to be developed on.	Chris looking at this from TIS end There are tickets already on this - TISNEW-2543 and 2544
POs Involvement	Getting POs to get involved in this interface and attend meetings	Naz may have to look at this from TIS end

Meeting Outcome:

It was agreed that we should look at the above data quality issues and make sure they are resolved before with start the bi-directional interface. It will not be appropriate to carry the known issues to bi-directional interface without being resolved.
To fix another date for meeting after Tayo's team must have completed their work on the business requirements side of things - 19th April 2019 suggested

Browser not supported