We have 2 different users uploading to ACW on behalf of the same organization and using the same Marked Individual IDs. But because they are using 2 different user IDs, they have created duplicate Marked Individuals.
My question is, if these 2 users created an edit-level collaboration, would their uploads of ID’d encounters go to the specified Marked Individual by ID even though it was created under the other user’s ID or would it still create a 2nd Marked Individual record because it’s uploaded by a different user ID, despite the collaboration?
I assume the latter but wanted to check. Being able to have multiple users in an organization upload images to the same Marked Individual ID is something we expect to need more and more - it’s that organizational-level data ownership vs submitter-level ownership issue we’ve discussed in the past.
Apologies for the delayed response. I dug into the code and here’s what I found:
Bulk imports scope the allowed individual IDs that can be added to (rather than forcing a new individual to be created) to the username value set in Encounter.submitterID in each row. If Encounter.submitterID is not set, then the currently logged in user (who is doing the bulk import) is considered.
For that user, we will load all individuals for which they have an owned Encounter (Encounter.submitterID matches their username) or for which they are listed as an Encounter submitter (e.g., Encounter.submitter0.emailAddress). That list of Marked Individuals from the existing database becomes the list that they can add new Encounters to (otherwise the new individual is created).
We do NOT consider Marked Individuals that they have not reported an Encounter for but may have access to via a Collaboration. That would be an interesting feature request…one that would not be technically hard to implement but which does have an impact on collaborating users and their data. We would be happy to consider this if you want to request it.
Very interesting @jason. Something I’ll discuss with Paul and some of our users. My instinct is that we would want this feature because it helps with multiple users working with the same dataset for a single organization. That’s where the issue comes into play - currently, without an organizational level share capability, I feel like this would be a useful feature. But I’ll think on it a bit and check in with others.
If there’s sufficient consensus, I’ll put in a feature request.