20/08/2018

Data leads:

#	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) 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 user TO 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.	ON HOLD till post MVP launch ~~Revisit in July 2018.~~ Revisit 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.
3	Data/Field level analysis	All	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
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: 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 Witton are 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: Scripts being worked on. Next step to create the stories in Jira.
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 Harris is 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.
6	Post Funding - management of posts with multiple current post funding episodes	JW	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)
7	Post Funding - vision document	JH	02/07: Post Funding Process around Vacant posts Reporting aspect Meeting organised by Nazia AKHTAR to 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
8	Posts with no Local Office owner	All	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.
9	Post specialty and sub-specialty confusion in TIS Interim	All	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
10	Identification and removal of Consultant data on TIS	All	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)~~ We have been asked to remove consultant/non-trainee data from the system. The focus is those records where there is no involvement in the management of a trainee. There are four parts involved in this work: 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. Create the SQL scripts, run the SQL scripts and verify the results and that those records should be removed from the system. 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). Confirm with the owner the data to be removed if they want a copy of the data. Senior colleagues want to see progress by 22nd August. We can satisfy this if we can show our approach and even any preliminary results. 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: Alice Brindle to share SQL script with Chris Norman. Alice Brindle to effectively provide Chris Norman a handover of the SQL. Benjamin Witton to provide an update to both James Harris and David Short. Benjamin Witton to catch up with Chris Norman and Adrian Ashley to identify potential case/rules. Additional actions: Define with Joanne the roles which should be in TIS. 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.
11	Use of non-official 'sub-specialties'	DS	Agree how non sub-specialties should be recorded in placements in TIS - see attachment for examples It is probably easier to keep/record these non sub-specialties in the sub-specialty field as opposed to creating a new field which would be a sub-sub-specialty field (which is what some of these values really represent). If using the existing sub-spec. field, it might be useful to be able to identify which of these are true sub-specialties are which ones aren't. Unofficial sub-specialties could be suffixed by a character such as an asterisk, dagger, etc. so they are easier to identify. 20/08: Use Comments to record the detailed level information.	CLOSE
12	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: This problem is unique to trainees in dual training programmes which include ICM (ICM+anaesthetics; ICM+EM; ICM+AM; ICM+Resp Med; ICM+Renal Med), because, unlike any other dual trainees, these trainees have two NTNs – one for ICM and one for the second specialty James would prefer an individual trainee to be recorded only once on TIS and has explained that TIS will allow us to change the NTN when the trainee rotates from ICM to the second specialty or from the second specialty to ICM The alternative would be to record the trainee on TIS twice (once in ICM with the ICM NTN and once in the second specialty with the second specialty NTN) – at any one time the trainee would then be in a post in one of the specialties and OOP in the other specialty. James does not want to use this option, as it is likely to lead to over-recording.. 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.