Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up

Hey neal,

I think a structure like that could be very useful for program monitoring
down here - could be potentially even more useful it is also available by
CHV. This could be a great addition to the KPI report that I'm working on.
I know that we're working on other things in HQ right now, so let's
consider this not an immediate priority.

However, what do other people think? Level of effort required to do
something like this for "all users" in a domain (not per CHV)?

I feel the need to create a list of tickets (bugs, features) for Dodoma
program with priorities and descriptions attached - akin to a traditional
ticket tracker - so I, personally (other potentially others) could keep
organized about bugs/enhancements/features. I worry about email threads
like this slipping through the cracks because everyone is working on other
things. You guys use fogbuz for this kind of stuff, and it doesn't seem
like it's easy to get access to that. Do you guys have any suggestions?

Thanks,
Nick

Nick P. Amland

CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com namland08@gmail.com

··· On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM, neal lesh wrote:

hi everybody.

plan sounds right--and not sure how much work needs to be done to support
it
all.

but for the case activity report, i still think i'd like to separate out
'defaulted' cases. let's say that a CHW had opened 15 cases and closed 5
of
them, and 6 had been visited in the last month, 2 in the last 90 days, and
2
not visited for 90 days then i think we'd see:

  1. active/open cases(%): 6/8 (75%)
  2. defaulted cases: 2
  3. closed cases: 5

so i am proposing that we modify the definition of column 1 in the current
report to exclude defaulted cases (and also exclude them from the late
computations), and add in columns 2 and 3.

this seems like more/better information to me.

-n

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian DeRenzi [mailto:bderenzi@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:18 AM
To: Daniel Roberts
Cc: Nick Amland; Cory Zue; Amelia Sagoff; Clayton Sims; Jonathan Jackson;
Neal Lesh
Subject: Re: Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up

I'm probably stating the obvious, but if you close things online, it's
important to push that change back down to the phone as well, correct?
Could be that you just make sure all the data is sent of the phone and do a
restore. If you don't, it's possible the phone will be out of sync (which
seems bad, though somehow not obvious what the worse case scenario is)

b

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Roberts droberts@dimagi.com wrote:

This plan sounds pretty good. The one thing clearly lacking from our
side is the ability to close a case online. Right now, all case
manipulation is done on the phone-side; the stuff you see online is
pretty much read-only, getting modified only when the phones modify
them. We could consider changing this.
A smaller thing we'd need to do is expose a way for you to see the
cases filtered by CHW and date modified. This is less of a big deal,
and if you need it I can talk to the others and try to get it on the
to-do
list.
What does everyone think?
Danny

2011/3/28 Nick Amland namland@dimagi.com

Hey guys,
After talking with Ken a little more about this and thinking more
about it, I think this is the plan to evaluate this data quality issue.

Examine the open case records

We want to separate the open cases which are potentially either
products of "manually" re-registering clients (Cory's described
scenario) or cases that are so old that they are no longer relevant.
So, we need some way to identify open cases which were opened prior to
January 1st, 2011 (3 months).

This is the cut-off date that Ken and I think is reasonable for
catching the open cases potentially fitting either of these two
scenarios.

"Close" the identified open case records

Once we've identified the open cases that fit these two scenarios,
we'll want to "close" them, so we can figure out exactly how many
open cases are "truly" open. I'm not sure exactly how we want to do
this. Suggestions welcome. :slight_smile:

Create list of current open cases per CHV

After we do the "broad" sweep of the data clean-up, Ken wants to
examine the open cases that are left from this process. This will be
a more "fine tooth comb" search for cases which should be closed and
may involve the CHVs, personally.

"Close" the identified open cases records from the second round

After the second sweep of open cases, we'll need to "close" these
cases as well. It may makes sense to combine steps 2 and 4.

Create "real" open cases list per CHV

Since we're aiming for a fresh start with referrals after the mobile
client upgrade, it would be nice to create a list of open cases that
CHVs could use to aid following-up with them, and we'd prioritize (or
just
emphasize) this activity until we are back up to date.

What do you guys think of this plan?
Given the potential for bad data (cory's scenario), I'm still
expecting there to be a lot of referrals that the CHVs just haven't
followed up with.

We've identified the main reasons which contribute to this, and
we've discussed ways to address them. However, I'll save that
discussion for another thread.
Thanks,
Nick
Nick P. Amland
CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com

This feels like a very familiar issue. Not sure we ever came up with a
perfect solution. Definitely bugs/features can be filed into Fogbugz
via email, which is helpful. Maybe they can tag certain bugs/features
that you open or are interested in following and send you them in an
automated email once a week in priority order? I have no idea how much
work that is, but I know Clayton is pretty good at wrangling up
automated emails.

Brian

··· ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nick Amland Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:24 AM Subject: Re: Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up To: neal lesh Cc: commcare-users , dodoma

Hey neal,
I think a structure like that could be very useful for program
monitoring down here - could be potentially even more useful it is
also available by CHV. This could be a great addition to the KPI
report that I'm working on. I know that we're working on other things
in HQ right now, so let's consider this not an immediate priority.
However, what do other people think? Level of effort required to do
something like this for "all users" in a domain (not per CHV)?
I feel the need to create a list of tickets (bugs, features) for
Dodoma program with priorities and descriptions attached - akin to a
traditional ticket tracker - so I, personally (other potentially
others) could keep organized about bugs/enhancements/features. I
worry about email threads like this slipping through the cracks
because everyone is working on other things. You guys use fogbuz for
this kind of stuff, and it doesn't seem like it's easy to get access
to that. Do you guys have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Nick
Nick P. Amland
CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM, neal lesh nlesh@dimagi.com wrote:

hi everybody.

plan sounds right--and not sure how much work needs to be done to support it
all.

but for the case activity report, i still think i'd like to separate out
'defaulted' cases. let's say that a CHW had opened 15 cases and closed 5 of
them, and 6 had been visited in the last month, 2 in the last 90 days, and 2
not visited for 90 days then i think we'd see:

  1. active/open cases(%): 6/8 (75%)
  2. defaulted cases: 2
  3. closed cases: 5

so i am proposing that we modify the definition of column 1 in the current
report to exclude defaulted cases (and also exclude them from the late
computations), and add in columns 2 and 3.

this seems like more/better information to me.

-n

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian DeRenzi [mailto:bderenzi@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:18 AM
To: Daniel Roberts
Cc: Nick Amland; Cory Zue; Amelia Sagoff; Clayton Sims; Jonathan Jackson;
Neal Lesh
Subject: Re: Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up

I'm probably stating the obvious, but if you close things online, it's
important to push that change back down to the phone as well, correct?
Could be that you just make sure all the data is sent of the phone and do a
restore. If you don't, it's possible the phone will be out of sync (which
seems bad, though somehow not obvious what the worse case scenario is)

b

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Roberts droberts@dimagi.com wrote:

This plan sounds pretty good. The one thing clearly lacking from our
side is the ability to close a case online. Right now, all case
manipulation is done on the phone-side; the stuff you see online is
pretty much read-only, getting modified only when the phones modify
them. We could consider changing this.
A smaller thing we'd need to do is expose a way for you to see the
cases filtered by CHW and date modified. This is less of a big deal,
and if you need it I can talk to the others and try to get it on the to-do
list.
What does everyone think?
Danny

2011/3/28 Nick Amland namland@dimagi.com

Hey guys,
After talking with Ken a little more about this and thinking more
about it, I think this is the plan to evaluate this data quality issue.

Examine the open case records

We want to separate the open cases which are potentially either
products of "manually" re-registering clients (Cory's described
scenario) or cases that are so old that they are no longer relevant.
So, we need some way to identify open cases which were opened prior to
January 1st, 2011 (3 months).

This is the cut-off date that Ken and I think is reasonable for
catching the open cases potentially fitting either of these two
scenarios.

"Close" the identified open case records

Once we've identified the open cases that fit these two scenarios,
we'll want to "close" them, so we can figure out exactly how many
open cases are "truly" open. I'm not sure exactly how we want to do
this. Suggestions welcome. :slight_smile:

Create list of current open cases per CHV

After we do the "broad" sweep of the data clean-up, Ken wants to
examine the open cases that are left from this process. This will be
a more "fine tooth comb" search for cases which should be closed and
may involve the CHVs, personally.

"Close" the identified open cases records from the second round

After the second sweep of open cases, we'll need to "close" these
cases as well. It may makes sense to combine steps 2 and 4.

Create "real" open cases list per CHV

Since we're aiming for a fresh start with referrals after the mobile
client upgrade, it would be nice to create a list of open cases that
CHVs could use to aid following-up with them, and we'd prioritize (or
just
emphasize) this activity until we are back up to date.

What do you guys think of this plan?
Given the potential for bad data (cory's scenario), I'm still
expecting there to be a lot of referrals that the CHVs just haven't
followed up with.

We've identified the main reasons which contribute to this, and
we've discussed ways to address them. However, I'll save that
discussion for another thread.
Thanks,
Nick
Nick P. Amland
CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com

heh. in theory, everything that gets emailed to commcarehq-support and
creates a ticket in fogbugz automatically gets added to the 'uncecided'
section of the commcareHQ roadmap. which is to say: we just set this up
yesterday exactly as brian describes.

now it remains to be seen if the oft-cryptic one-line task descriptions sent
out in an email once a week provide enough context for nick or brian or
whomever to actually push back on bug fixes/feature requests that they think
deserve more attention...

··· On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Brian DeRenzi wrote:

This feels like a very familiar issue. Not sure we ever came up with a
perfect solution. Definitely bugs/features can be filed into Fogbugz
via email, which is helpful. Maybe they can tag certain bugs/features
that you open or are interested in following and send you them in an
automated email once a week in priority order? I have no idea how much
work that is, but I know Clayton is pretty good at wrangling up
automated emails.

Brian

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Amland namland@dimagi.com
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up
To: neal lesh nlesh@dimagi.com
Cc: commcare-users commcare-users@googlegroups.com, dodoma <
dodoma@dimagi.com>

Hey neal,
I think a structure like that could be very useful for program
monitoring down here - could be potentially even more useful it is
also available by CHV. This could be a great addition to the KPI
report that I'm working on. I know that we're working on other things
in HQ right now, so let's consider this not an immediate priority.
However, what do other people think? Level of effort required to do
something like this for "all users" in a domain (not per CHV)?
I feel the need to create a list of tickets (bugs, features) for
Dodoma program with priorities and descriptions attached - akin to a
traditional ticket tracker - so I, personally (other potentially
others) could keep organized about bugs/enhancements/features. I
worry about email threads like this slipping through the cracks
because everyone is working on other things. You guys use fogbuz for
this kind of stuff, and it doesn't seem like it's easy to get access
to that. Do you guys have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Nick
Nick P. Amland
CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM, neal lesh nlesh@dimagi.com wrote:

hi everybody.

plan sounds right--and not sure how much work needs to be done to support
it
all.

but for the case activity report, i still think i'd like to separate out
'defaulted' cases. let's say that a CHW had opened 15 cases and closed 5
of
them, and 6 had been visited in the last month, 2 in the last 90 days,
and 2
not visited for 90 days then i think we'd see:

  1. active/open cases(%): 6/8 (75%)
  2. defaulted cases: 2
  3. closed cases: 5

so i am proposing that we modify the definition of column 1 in the
current
report to exclude defaulted cases (and also exclude them from the late
computations), and add in columns 2 and 3.

this seems like more/better information to me.

-n

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian DeRenzi [mailto:bderenzi@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:18 AM
To: Daniel Roberts
Cc: Nick Amland; Cory Zue; Amelia Sagoff; Clayton Sims; Jonathan Jackson;
Neal Lesh
Subject: Re: Plan for Open Case Referral Data Clean-Up

I'm probably stating the obvious, but if you close things online, it's
important to push that change back down to the phone as well, correct?
Could be that you just make sure all the data is sent of the phone and do
a
restore. If you don't, it's possible the phone will be out of sync (which
seems bad, though somehow not obvious what the worse case scenario is)

b

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Roberts droberts@dimagi.com wrote:

This plan sounds pretty good. The one thing clearly lacking from our
side is the ability to close a case online. Right now, all case
manipulation is done on the phone-side; the stuff you see online is
pretty much read-only, getting modified only when the phones modify
them. We could consider changing this.
A smaller thing we'd need to do is expose a way for you to see the
cases filtered by CHW and date modified. This is less of a big deal,
and if you need it I can talk to the others and try to get it on the
to-do
list.

What does everyone think?
Danny

2011/3/28 Nick Amland namland@dimagi.com

Hey guys,
After talking with Ken a little more about this and thinking more
about it, I think this is the plan to evaluate this data quality
issue.

Examine the open case records

We want to separate the open cases which are potentially either
products of "manually" re-registering clients (Cory's described
scenario) or cases that are so old that they are no longer relevant.
So, we need some way to identify open cases which were opened prior to
January 1st, 2011 (3 months).

This is the cut-off date that Ken and I think is reasonable for
catching the open cases potentially fitting either of these two
scenarios.

"Close" the identified open case records

Once we've identified the open cases that fit these two scenarios,
we'll want to "close" them, so we can figure out exactly how many
open cases are "truly" open. I'm not sure exactly how we want to do
this. Suggestions welcome. :slight_smile:

Create list of current open cases per CHV

After we do the "broad" sweep of the data clean-up, Ken wants to
examine the open cases that are left from this process. This will be
a more "fine tooth comb" search for cases which should be closed and
may involve the CHVs, personally.

"Close" the identified open cases records from the second round

After the second sweep of open cases, we'll need to "close" these
cases as well. It may makes sense to combine steps 2 and 4.

Create "real" open cases list per CHV

Since we're aiming for a fresh start with referrals after the mobile
client upgrade, it would be nice to create a list of open cases that
CHVs could use to aid following-up with them, and we'd prioritize (or
just
emphasize) this activity until we are back up to date.

What do you guys think of this plan?
Given the potential for bad data (cory's scenario), I'm still
expecting there to be a lot of referrals that the CHVs just haven't
followed up with.

We've identified the main reasons which contribute to this, and
we've discussed ways to address them. However, I'll save that
discussion for another thread.
Thanks,
Nick
Nick P. Amland
CommCare Field Fellow
Dimagi, Inc.
Dodoma, Tanzania
Google Voice: 253.642.7790
TZ Mobile: +255 762 740 996
Email: namland@dimagi.com