After upgrading to HIFIS 4.0.59.7.1 from HIFIS 4.0.59.4, we received several complaints that some of our clients were no longer appearing in search results. These clients were active but not visible in the search results using any of the All, Active, Inactive and Deceased filters.

Initial troubleshooting found that these ‘missing’ clients had all been merged with other client profile(s) in the past and had active Declined – Anonymous and Explicit consents assigned to their profile from the client merge process.

A client’s consent is evaluated as part of the criteria used to determine whether the client should appear in search results.  For clients with both Declined-Anonymous and Explicit consents, the Declined – Anonymous consent is evaluated first. When the Declined consent is from a different service provider than the service provider the user performing the search is logged in to, the client will not appear in the search results.

Consent evaluation order used in HIFIS 4.0.59.7.1

• Declined - Anonymous Consent without an Expiry Date.

• Explicit Consent that does not have an Expiry Date or the Expiry date occurs in the future.

• Declined - Anonymous Consent with an Expiry Date.

Workaround / Fix

As a workaround/fix for this issue, the consent evaluation order was modified to check for Explicit consent first.

• Explicit Consent that does not have an Expiry Date or the Expiry date occurs in the future.

• Declined - Anonymous Consent without an Expiry Date.

• Declined - Anonymous Consent with an Expiry Date.

This was done by modifying the vw_ClientSearch database view and updating the ISNULL() code on lines 48 and 57.

Before ISNULL(C2.ConsentID,ISNULL(CX.ConsentID,C2E.ConsentID)) AS ConsentID

After ISNULL(CX.ConsentID,ISNULL(C2.ConsentID,C2E.ConsentID)

After making this change, the ‘missing’ clients appeared in search results.