Register a death alpha assessment
Service Standard assessment report Register a death 29/03/2022
Service Standard assessment report
Register a death
| From: | Central Digital & Data Office (CDDO) |
| Assessment date: | 29/03/2022 |
| Stage: | Alpha |
| Result: | Not Met |
| Service provider: | Home Office (HMPO) |
Service description
This service aims to solve the problem of providing qualified people (‘informants’) the choice to fill in registration questions at home, before going to a register office to sign the death register.
A digital case working system will help registrars to:
- capture answers given in the public-facing service
- let registrars verify and edit this information with the informant before signing the register
- allow for incremental addition of information to a case at any point before registration, so registration tasks can be done before an appointment
Service users
The primary users of the service are Registrars and Informants.
Registrars are the persons legally required to register a death, they carry out the registration appointments capturing the information needed, and informants are responsible for providing the information needed to register the death on behalf of the deceased. Registrars issue a death certificate which is necessary for burial or cremation (disposal of a body).
Primary users:
- Informants can be anyone who meets the qualification criteria to register the death of the deceased
- 174 Local Registration offices across England and Wales. (Note – civil registration is a devolved power for Scotland and Northern Ireland, they have their own separate organisations that are not in scope).
Secondary Users:
There are users that are indirectly involved in the death registration that are responsible for providing information to registrars to register a death, support registrars with queries or use the data captured within a death registration to pass on to other 3rd parties. These include:
Medical examiners, Doctors/GPs, Coroners, Bereavement services, General Register Office and General Register Offices Caseworkers
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service did not meet point 1 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have a solid view of their users, their needs and detail in the personas to work with
- the team methodically presented problems and hypotheses, and how they tested risky assumptions
- research methods were appropriate
- the team plan to run workshops and training to support them on what is a very difficult subject
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- adjust the balance so informants are more evenly represented against registrants. The team could consider additional recruitment routes. For example, The Association of Palliative Care or end of life hospices local to the team, as well as paid for recruitment panels
- Explore anti-personas (users we don’t want to use the service). For example someone interpreting for a user who doesn’t have sufficient grasp of English, how does the service protect against malicious activity?
- consider how far to scale research in beta, the scope presented at this assessment didn’t feel significant enough to cover the whole service
- consider exploring a product like Hotjar, UserZoom or Crazy Egg to respectfully playback anonymous sessions and collate volunteered feedback
- consider observing in-person appointments between informants and registrants
- consider running private beta with more than one registrar’s office given that working practices and systems differ
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service met point 2 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team tested their riskiest assumptions through user research
- the team has spoken to multiple organisations invested in different parts of the journey, raising awareness of the team’s work and understanding how it relates to the needs of others
- the team understands and can convey the legislative constraints and related timelines, and are attempting to futureproof the service as much as possible in response to these
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- consider whether the scope of the MVP should be wider than currently proposed - What percentage of all annual registered deaths does the current MVP support? How would this service eventually work for individuals who need death certificates in very short periods of time?
- explore how they can use information and datasets elsewhere across government to reduce the need for informants and registrants to enter data manually
- explore the impact that RON will have on the data they’re collecting in the service, and the requirements and constraints that this brings
- develop a more detailed user journey map that shows the wider user experience in the context of this service
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service did not meet point 3 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team are looking to invite registrants to future user research sessions
- the team understands the benefit that this can bring to registrants and other government and NHS organisations
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- put together a plan to test journeys with more than one registrant in private beta, to ensure they’re applicable and scalable to multiple areas. For example, the team might want to choose a registrant using proprietary software, a registrant with their own internal systems, a registrant that covers a socially diverse, multicultural city and a registrant that’s geographically remote
- how each handover point will work, for example: informants receiving details about the service from a third party; interactions with existing council and registrar processes; informants booking an appointment with the appropriate LRS; informants speaking to the phone line or attending in person; informants directly contacting LRSs
- explore the offline experience in more detail, including the use of SMS and telephone
- explore whether there’s a need for a reference code or number and, if so, how this would be used across different channels and actors
- work with multiple call centres to understand how their processes may differ and what influence they can have on their operations, such as scripts
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service met point 4 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the content designer is clear that the service will include minimal information needed and will add to it where user research shows more guidance is needed
- the team has an awareness and understanding of the cognitive load of users and their emotional states during the process
- the team is aware of lots of barriers to using the service, including geography and digital literacy/confidence levels
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- test all parts of the service (online and offline) with users, including SMS and phone channels
-
ensure they’re following GOV.UK patterns where they exist, such as labelling non-mandatory questions as ‘(optional)’, and following start page patterns
- make sure that the language is tested and appropriate to the breadth of potential audience, including individuals who may not have English as their first language
- test with users to see whether empty fields should show an ‘empty state’ when not in being edited, rather than nothing
- test whether a screen with multiple tags is an appropriate approach to flagging field status in the registrant system – should error messages or an ‘optional’ indicator be used instead
- confirm through user testing that a reference number/code is not needed within the service
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service met point 5 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team had considered both accessibility and assisted digital
- the team has plans for both assisted digital and accessibility recruitment and research for private beta
- the team has plans in place for accessibility testing
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- be clear on the difference between accessibility needs and assisted digital needs. They are not the same thing
- plot research participants on a digital inclusion scale scatter graph, calling out why some users had particular needs
- explore how it can recruit participants through non-digital channels, such as assisted digital users through local charity groups
- undertake research with users who are reflective of potential service users, including those who may not have strong English skills or English as their first language, and those who are geographically remote
- explore whether the proposed assisted digital routes work for users of the service
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service met point 6 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- there is a multidisciplinary team in place which covers all of the roles expected during Alpha and resources required to support Private Beta have been identified
- the team has demonstrated good collaboration across a broad spectrum of stakeholders during the Discovery and Alpha phases and have established communication routes in place which are linked to the wider programme of work
- the team has good levels of engagement to policy and strategy colleagues and also have access to shared programme resources, these are primarily in the technical and business architecture roles
- there is a robust onboarding process in place. The same team will continue to work together as the service iterates, this provides continuity across the service and shows a clear commitment to the ongoing development of the service
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- demonstrate that the balance of the team in Private Beta is correct, there is a concern that sharing resources within UCD roles across the two delivery teams may not only be a constraint but also place additional pressure on the people performing those roles
- consider the need for a Service Designer within the team, understanding the taxonomy of the whole service will help inform design (technical and application) decisions and aid stakeholder conversations
- ensure that the size and shape of the team complements the design and development work that is being undertaken and all roles are being fully utilised
- have a clear plan to reduce the number of supplier roles and wherever possible introduce permanent civil servants
- engage with other areas of government that have been undertaking activity relating to bereavement to share best practice – DWP Digital have undertaken significant work in this area
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service met point 7 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
-
the team has clearly defined their ways of working and have the appropriate ceremonies in place, providing the opportunity for all team members to collaborate through a number of digital channels
- the team is one of several work streams which are loosely coupled and demonstrate good working relationships across all workstreams, sharing outputs and supporting service design that will enable reuse and continuity for users
- there is an established governance process in place that allows the team to escalate where necessary
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- seek to reduce reporting and governance associated to the service or at least ensure it is streamlined so that it does not impede on their ability to iterate the service as a result of user feedback and qualitative / quantitative data
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service met point 8 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team demonstrated that they had learned from users and considered other designs to meet user needs and designs have been iterated to reflect UR findings
- the team has a clearly defined MVP and a good understanding of the service users who are excluded from using the service
- there is a good understanding of the technical, legislative and policy constraints and the team continues to use an evidence based approach to influence future changes in those areas
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- ensure that data insight is used when making value based design decisions and measuring service success
- consider the end-to-end service for all users, the current service iterations have focused on a narrow cohort and have been constrained to certain user journeys. There needs to be a clearer focus on how the service will be iterated to support the majority of users
- have a clear research plan in place to enable design iteration across the broader user journey
- consider the impact on the user experience across all channels to ensure continuity of service irrespective of the channel used
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service met point 9 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team has acknowledged the need for user privacy and has plans to fully address this
- the team is making use of existing processes as part of the existing EBSA platform reuse to protect user’s data and privacy
- data is stored for the minimal amount of time possible and schedule deletes occur when data is no longer required
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- ensure that the data stored in S3 although encrypted at rest and in transit is protected from external attack and misconfiguration
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service did not meet point 10 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team identified additional KPIs that they would use to measure the success of the service in addition to the mandatory KPIs. These will be used to understand average time per transaction and user churn
- there is an acknowledgement that as the service builds further KPIs will be required to measure impact
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- work with stakeholders to develop a set of OKR’s (Objectives and Key Results) that reflect the Service vision and mission statements
- use the OKRs to develop a Performance framework. This will ensure that all elements of the service are being measured against a broader data set and not just Google Analytics data which does not provide a holistic view of service performance
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service met point 11 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team is reusing the EBSA platform which already exists
- the team is making use of the GDS templates on GOV.UK
- the team is making use of existing tools already in use within the department e.g. Node.js / express.js and where this has not been possible appropriate due diligence has been applied to make use of suitable tools i.e. typescript
- the team is making use of the existing service layer i.e. spring and that Maven is extensively used also within the department
- the service has been designed to use microservices from the outset and the microservices themselves are well contained
- appropriate test tooling has been selected and a tester is embedded in each team
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- ensure that the choice of Postgres as a development environment and Aurora as a production environment continues to suit the project needs and that any incompatibilities that may come to light are managed early
- continue to progress the automation of testing and incorporate that automation in the CICD pipeline
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service met point 12 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team is using a repository tool. However, this tool in use i.e. bitbucket is not open
- there is an existing tech catalogue stored in confluence
- code is shared appropriately within the team and wider department
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- have plans in place to ensure that code is shared to the open, public repository e.g. GitHub
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service met point 13 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team has approached other organisations to identify and re-use existing patterns that address similar problems and needs
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- explore whether the MoJ and HMPO patterns they’re using work for users of this service, contributing their research findings to the development of the GOV.UK Design System
- make sure that their service is making use of GOV.UK patterns and components, evidencing through user research where they’ve had to deviate away from them - see recommendations under Service Standard Point 4
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service met point 14 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the service makes use of available features in AWS for scaling
- the service makes use of multiple availability zones
- the use of Aurora as a service for the database ensures data replication in the event of a failure
- the team has plans in place for registrars to fall back to RON in the event of downtime
- the service will be monitored via existing EBSA tooling to flag issues early
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- ensure that appropriate feedback is given to users especially citizens when the service is unavailable. This would be a distressing time for those reporting a death and the service should be transparent and informative to users when not available
- have plans in place to support registrars when the RON system is removed and is no longer available as a fallback
Published 25 January 2024