Questions and feedback from PO's, BA's and SMLs/BMs.

#	Feedback	Comment	Reporter	Owner
1	The only other thing I can think of is GP practice payments for CPD and trainer grants but we just use the data on GP placements on Intrepid to run a report to inform us which GP practices need paying. This is currently very clunky and we really do need a solution to make it more streamlined. It may not be for core but really does need some thought about how we can make it easier.		Amanda Barber - 01/09
2	we have a report that is working for us via the data repository for some of the payments but the CPD is still a problem, we really need a system that can track which practices have been paid and when and to link this to trainees being in the practice. Definitely not something for core but would be useful in the future. Nikki Walmsley in our team has all the knowledge if you need her to impart any of it now or in the future. (Nikki Walmsley)	JW, 4/9: I'll write that up as a story and attach Nikki's name to it so that we don't lost track of it after March 2018.	Amanda Barber - 01/09	Joanne Watson (Unlicensed)
3	Joanne, let me clarify the position for London. Firstly, we don't actually use more than the Funding Start Date, Funding End Date and Funding Status on Intrepid - the data we have in the rest of the Funding elements is extremely patchy because we have been waiting for a long time for a bulk update to get correct financial figures into Intrepid. So at present we generate finance schedules from post data held in spreadsheets which use VLOOKUPs and some complex formulae to calculate for each post the exact funding for Q1 YTD, Q2 YTD, Q3 YTD and the full year. The VLOOKUPs use Funding Type and Grade to determine the correct salary contribution and use Funding Body to determine the MFF used in the placement tariff calculation. I will email you our look up table for information, showing distinct salary contribution tables for Tariff and MADEL funding. Secondly we run reports off Intrepid to determine who to fund and for what periods for LTFT funding and NIHR funding. This funding is calculated by our LDA finance team based on look up tables for LTFT and NIHR payment rates, with trainee grade as the key parameter, pro rata for the date range given (to the nearest month). The NPN of each of these trainees' posts is used to determine if post funding had been provided and if so the finance team switches off the post funding. Thirdly, the placement data related to our Lead Employers is used to check the backing data supplied by Lead Employers with their invoices for salary recharges. Fourthly, we need a list of TPDs and which Trust they are seconded from and for how many sessions in order to determine TPD funding - this should ideally come from Intrepid/TIS but currently I don't think it does. If I think of any other funding scenarios I'll make a separate comment.		Dave Rainer -18/09
4	I’ve been thinking about post funding especially since I’ve been having weekly meetings with finance trying to fix the LDA. I have already populated all the information on intrepid so don’t want to lose that information. With post funding type other, I’ve used funding organisation to define what this is. This is all a bit messy but I need some way to differentiate. If the plan in TIS is to not have this field, I would either need to expand the funding type list or have a second field for other. The types of funding types I would need are as follows: Supernumerary: I know this can be found in the post number but some much easier to record this type of information in one place. Non-tariff: this includes things like palliative medicine which are funded by HEE but is not tariff NIHR: asked to report on this on multiple reports Charity/biomedical organisation Military: again can be found in the npn but much easier if it’s all in the same place. As I said we have populated all the fields in intrepid but I’m not particularly bother about losing the rest. Level of post we actually use approved grade for. Tariff rate and placement rate finance use their own models anyway. Apologies Joanne if this has been discussed on Microsoft teams. I’m on my mobile at the moment travelling so this is a bit easier.	Dave Rayner, 20/11: Whilst there is merit having a list of standard options, there should always be an “Other” option with explanation in a free text box, because we cannot foresee every special case. The main uses I make of Funding Type “Other” are: Public Health salary recharges Self-funding, e.g. for endodontics, periodontics and prosthodontics Military Education Resources budget Exceptional training budget GP practice salary recharges through Lead Employer Palliative medicine hospice salary recharges through Lead Employer Project funding – needs free text box to explain what Project Full funding based on trainee grade through LDA Other Education & Training for trainees displaced from established posts due to quality issues Note I totally disagree that it should be used for non-tariff as described below – that’s what we call MADEL funding and hence we use MADEL Funding Type. Note also several of the above categories are what we call supernumerary (numbers 3, 4, 5, and 9) but I prefer to see the full description rather than vaguely say “Supernumerary”.	James Harris, 20/11
5	I've been working with out regional finance team on the LDA for EoE and they have a need for more specific information than 'Other' but not as specific as Funding Body/Organisation. I fully appreciate that having a free text box is useful and I am not suggesting this is removed. However, this will mean we will have no standardization across local teams making national reporting not possible. Also, I believe there are common groupings of 'Other' funded posts nationally. My proposal would very crudely explained be the following: Funding Type: ‘Other’ – Other Type (standardised list to be decided) – Free text box for additional info Without this list of other types, I would need to set a list for administrators here to manually type in which would be time-consuming and likely cause input errors and allow for deviation.	Dave Rayner, 21/11: Great so we both agree the free text box is needed. Why don't we ask the TIS team to merge your list of "standard" uses with mine to create a proposed list for others to comment on? Joanne Watson, 22/11: Best thing would be to ask other finance/post colleagues to comment on the conversations already here. Will send a notification to both finance and post colleagues to draw their attention to this conversation.	James Harris, 21/11	Joanne Watson (Unlicensed)

Browser not supported