Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟡 Changes recommended
The query does not enforce the documented outstanding-balance scope, and its hardcoded identifier configuration is undocumented.
Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1
Open (2)
What changed in this PR
Documents an SSMM report for patient accounts without a linked primary encounter.
Changes:
- Adds report purpose, SQL query, parameters, and usage notes.
- Includes patient, account, balance, status, and SSMM identifier fields.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
Care/Accounting/accounts_with_no_encounter_linked_ssmm.md |
Adds the account-without-encounter report documentation and SQL. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| LEFT JOIN emr_patientidentifier pi | ||
| ON emr_patient.id = pi.patient_id | ||
| AND pi.config_id = 21 | ||
| WHERE emr_account.primary_encounter_id IS NULL |
| - **No encounter filter:** `emr_account.primary_encounter_id IS NULL` returns only accounts not linked to any primary encounter. | ||
| - **Due amount:** `total_balance` is rounded to the nearest whole number and cast to integer. | ||
| - Results are sorted by highest due amount first. |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Analytics SQL Review — Accounts with no encounter linked (SSMM)
Ticket: not linked. JIRA returned no ticket for branch ENG-1064 (404 at the base URL, 401 at the scoped endpoint). Either the ticket ID is wrong, the ticket isn't visible to the bot, or the token has expired. I couldn't check requirement fidelity: metric, grain, facility scope and whether "outstanding" means > 0. Please confirm against ENG-1064 by hand.
SQL: the query parses cleanly (lint found nothing) but I wouldn't publish it yet. It has no facility filter, no entered_in_error exclusion and no deleted filter. See the inline comment. This is the main issue.
Already raised by another reviewer, so I'm not repeating them: the zero and negative balances vs the "outstanding balance" wording, and the undocumented config_id = 21. I agree with both. For the second, the Notes should say what identifier config 21 is (SSMM ID) and when to update it.
Doc and hygiene: the folder, filename and Last updated are fine, and the Parameters table is consistent with a query that has no parameters.
Verdict: not safe to publish as is. The numbers can include other facilities' accounts and void accounts.
Generated by Analytics SQL Reviewer for #162 · auto · 19.2 AIC · ⊞ 14.3K
| LEFT JOIN emr_patientidentifier pi | ||
| ON emr_patient.id = pi.patient_id | ||
| AND pi.config_id = 21 | ||
| WHERE emr_account.primary_encounter_id IS NULL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical — no facility scope, no status/deleted filter. emr_account has a facility FK, but nothing here restricts the query to the SSMM facility. The _ssmm suffix is only a filename; the query returns accounts from every facility on the deployment, and the pi.config_id = 21 join only affects the ID column, not the rows. There is also no entered_in_error exclusion (accounts created by mistake still count toward "due amount") and no deleted = FALSE. Please confirm the field names against care/emr/models/account.py and add something like:
WHERE emr_account.primary_encounter_id IS NULL
AND emr_account.facility_id = <SSMM facility id> -- document in Notes
AND emr_account.status <> 'entered_in_error'
AND emr_account.deleted = FALSE
AND emr_patient.deleted = FALSEAlso, emr_patientidentifier is optional here (LEFT JOIN, good). If a patient can have more than one identifier row for config 21, they'd be duplicated. Worth confirming that's unique per patient.
No description provided.