HIFIS Feedback

There are a lot of fields that cannot be made mandatory or disabled, for no particular reason other than that functionality has not been programmed. It would be ideal if ALL fields could be configurable in this way. See also https://hifisfeedback.acreconsulting.ca/b/6vrrdwev/feature-ideas/hidden-not-just-disabled-fields

For most users, Bing Maps will stop working on June 30, 2025. New HIFIS instances are already unable to create new Bing Maps keys. This means that on June 30, 2025 any feature that has to do with mapping will stop functioning. That includes: Directory of Services mapHousing Unit Search mapGoods & Services and Group Activities geo-taggingOutreach mapEncampments geo-tagging and map display

Fields can be disabled but this just greys them out and doesn't hide them. It would be great if we could hide fields we don't want shown, or ones we don't want shown all the time. Then, it would be ideal for communities to be able to customize which fields are hidden by default and which ones are not. Theoretically, I would have 4 tiers: Visible by default and mandatoryVisible by default and optionalHidden by default and optional (with an option to show field)Hidden and disabled (with no option to display, so like always hidden, completely removed)

Although obviously people shouldn’t be collecting information for non-consenting clients, there is a big sticking point and that’s shelter use. Shelters need to report on bed nights and occupancy, and if they give a bed to a client who didn’t consent to information collection, they’re put in a difficult position. What to do? The options are: Book in the client Anonymous, Anonymous. But this client is still bound by the concurrent stays rules, so cannot be in two beds at the same time. If there are two non-consenting clients occupying any two shelter beds at the same time, this is a problem.Don’t record it in HIFIS at all. But then the HIFIS data is unreliable, and you can’t run a year-end report, or do a data export to INFC, that is actually true. And people might think the bed is available because HIFIS says so, so make inappropriate referrals.Create a series of fake clients, like Anon 1 and Anon 2, so they can be booked in concurrently. This is the option a lot of communities take, but it then causes a proliferation of clients named “Anonymous” or “Anon,” which makes the database messy and actually discourages users from getting real consent. Since this is really only a big problem in Admissions (concurrent book-ins), I propose a solution like in Turnaways: Add Anonymous Book-In. Same as the way Turnaways handle anonymous clients, but for the Admissions module.

Sometimes a user account might get added with a typo, or in contravention of a naming policy. It would be great if we could be able to modify user accounts.

Known bug that happens a LOT! Clients show up as “Unknown” housing status even when there is data that should give them a different status! More detail in the comments.

In testing 60.3 we have found an issue with the “View All Session Details” button in the Case Management area. To see this, create a new case management record, or open a client that already has an open case management record, either from Front Desk > Case Management, or from Client Management > Case Management. Then Click on the Display button to view the details. What we expect to see here is a summary of all sessions attached to the case management record. In our production environment (v4.0.59.7.1) we see a summary of all sessions attached to the case management record.

Currently, can't make the attachments field in Consent module mandatory or disabled.

In testing 60.3 we have found an issue with records duplicating under the Financial Profile area. This appears to be affecting all 4 tabs within the Financial Profile section. Whenever you add a record under Income, Expenses, Assets or Debts when there is already a record, the new record is added multiple times. For example, I added a “Employment - Casual" record under Incomes on client # 5624 on the demo site. Adding the first record seems to work properly.I then added a new income record for “OW” and two were createdI then added another new record for “Panhandling” which was created 3 times.Adding a fourth record for “Disability Benefits” resulted in 4 records being created

When creating new services (Admissions, Case Management, Housing Placements, Reservations, SPDAT, Storage, Turnaways etc..) for a client in HIFIS 4.0.60.4.2, the 'RecentActivityModuleTypeID' and 'RecentActivityDateTime' fields in the HIFIS_Clients table are not updated to reflect the client's most recent activity. This can result in inaccurate data shown in the 'RecentInteractionDateTime' and 'SinceLastActivityDays' fields in the vw_CoordinatedAccess and vw_CoordinatedAccessExport views.

Clients currently in shelter appear to not have their activity status reset every day if they are actively booked into shelter. So instead of 0 days, all clients who have been booked in shelter are showing last activity day as the day of the update instead of 0 days.

We are currently running build 4.0.59.5. I have an consent related enhancement request to submit for a future HIFIS patch. We would like to be able to disable the “Explicit” consent type option in the consent drop down when creating a client or a consent record. When we upgraded our HIFIS instance from 58 to the 59 version, we selected the option to convert all our Explicit consent records into Coordinated Access + Explicit consent, since our consent form already included consent for entry into the Coordinated Access system. We are running into a process issue where we can not stop users from selecting the “Explicit” option when creating new consent records, when really they should be selecting Explicit + Coordinated Access consent. This results in clients being created with only the Explicit record (just like they used to be prior to v59) and thus are missing from the CA list, even if they meet all the other criteria. We have tried to train workers not to use the “Explicit” option, but unfortunately we have a lot of users who are not understanding this requirement to get their clients into the CA system, even after multiple reminders. The only way we can fix this currently is our HIFIS coordinator reviewing a custom report and adding the missing CA consent. If we had some other way to prevent “Explicit Only” clients from being created, it would increase our data quality for the ESDC export as well as save our coordinator a lot of time manually reviewing the files that have explicit consent but are missing CA consent. This would affect the add client screen (with enforce consent) where we would like the ability to remove “Explicit” as an option. This would also affect the Client Management -> Consent screen As well as the Enforce Consent popup when that setting is enabled.