.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
One delayed visit can produce an open-form alert, missing-laboratory alert and overdue-activity alert. Counting them as three independent process failures can distort priorities. Deduplication should instead be a controlled review decision that explains their relationship to a common event while retaining the evidence behind each alert.
Scope of the decision
A participant number alone is an insufficient matching key. Consider the visit, source event, time interval and affected processes together. Distinguish consequences of the same event from unrelated problems involving the same person. Retain separate responsibilities when different teams must perform different corrections.
Worked review
For example, rescheduling one visit triggers three indicators. A reviewer links the scheduling record with actual procedure dates and discovers that the laboratory also made an independent dispatch error. Two alerts are connected to the visit event, while the laboratory problem remains open as a separate action.
Practical checks
- Keep each original alert identifier and the reason for linking it.
- Check that merging does not hide safety impact or separate corrective work.
- Distinguish raw alert counts from independent event counts in reports.
Acceptance and limits
Fewer rows are not the acceptance criterion. Another reviewer should be able to reconstruct the common event, its separate consequences and outstanding tasks. Allow the decision to be reversed if later evidence shows different causes and the alerts need to be separated again.
Frequently asked questions
- Does an automated match establish duplication?
- No. Matching identifies candidates; an authorised reviewer evaluates their context and effects.
- Can linked alerts simply be closed?
- A relationship is not a resolution. Preserve the required assessment and action status for every consequence.