Import Board Approvals

Owned by Robert Adach
Last updated: Feb 08, 2023
2 min read

Possible Important concepts

  • Difference between and association of a candidate record and an approval record

  • Fuzzy logic matching techniques

Areas affected / currently used

  • Board portal - EREG2 implementation

  • crcApprovals

Preconditions

  • Use of EREG2 board portal by board staff

  • Completed initial design of Candidate record format

  • Completed initial design of approval record format

  • Completed initial design of exam attempt results

Background

Within the legacy system, EA staff must review a number of entered approvals which have a possible match to existing approvals or candidate. This matching occurs due to slight differences between an existing candidate and/or approval record and the submitted approval now under review. With the release of EREG2, the changes introduced to the approval entry process used by Board staff will lead to better identification of open approvals and offering the ability to match/edit/update open approvals. This will reduce the amount of matching needed.

Today, each approval that is entered into the board portal is saved into a holding table pending review. As part of the review process, the system will attempt to match each approval to an existing candidate or approval. The staff has the ability to have the system automatically create candidate records (if needed) and add approvals to the system if the matching algorithm shows no possible match or 100& match to existing records via the [Import all] button. After this process is completed, the system lists all approvals which have a partial match to an existing Candidate record and/or Approval record.

When partially matched approvals are reviewed the staff should have the opportunity to

  1. alter information on the Candidate record

  2. alter information on the existing approval

  3. Indicate that the approval needs additional information from board

  4. allow the staff to send a request to the board for additional information

  5. Add notes to the existing candidate record (optional)

  6. Add notes to the existing approval record (optional)

  7. Add new approval to the existing Candidate record

  8. Identify if change is needed on approval or Candidate and approval (no change should be made to a candidate record alone from an approval)

Items to be considered

  • Increase the efficiency of the review process, the [Import All] button should be eliminated and the “no match”/100% match approvals should be automatically processed and never seen by the staff.

  • It has also been discussed that based on the variety of data points provided by boards, there should be a review and possible improvement made to the quality of the matches. This matching should also be implemented but restricted records associated with the entering board only in the board portal.

  • If changes to an existing registration are made that warrant PV notification, they should immediately be sent.

  • if changes to an existing approval are made that warrant a review by Special Exams, they should be made aware

 

Items to be documented/redesigned

  • Approval/Candidate matching algorithm

  • Logic for when a change to an open registration should warrant updates being sent to PV

  • Logic for when a change to an approval should warrant updates being sent to PV

Supporting documents