Sc 17708 #5753

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl · 2026-01-15T03:25:25Z

Story card: sc-17708

Because

The DM dashboard "DM patients with controlled BP" card was using dummy data and needed backend support to display real metrics.

This addresses

Adds backend methods in RegionSummarySchema to calculate DM patients with controlled BP (<140/90 and <130/80)
Wires DmBpControlledComponent to use real data from RepositoryPresenter
Adds specs for the new metrics

Test instructions

Suit test cases.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T05:50:17Z

app/models/reports/region_summary_schema.rb

      }
    end
+
+    def dm_controlled_bp_query(entry, systolic_threshold:, diastolic_threshold:, with_ltfu: false)


Can this whole calculation be persisted under reporting_facility_states, as this is going to be our standard dashboard design going forward?
The numbers can then be used for metabase reports as well.

…s v12

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T09:24:45Z

db/migrate/20260120115014_update_reporting_facility_states_to_version12.rb

+      version: 12,
+      revert_to_version: 11,
+      materialized: true
+  end


Changing the matview definition like this is efficient but it creates them with data. Currently in BD this takes 1.14 hours to refresh this data.
India it takes 3.17 hours
Semaphore will timeout by then.
We need to drop the mat view and recreate it without data. Then do a refresh of this later after deployment.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T09:29:36Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care') AS diabetes_patients_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'lost_to_follow_up') AS diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up,
+
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_under_care,


can we rename dm_bp_140_90_under_care to dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care ? This makes it more clear on what data the field is holding.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T09:31:49Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'lost_to_follow_up') AS diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up,
+
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_ltfu_under_care,


might not be required.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T11:33:38Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_ltfu_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 130 AND diastolic < 80 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_130_80_under_care,


dm_bp_130_80_under_care -> dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T11:35:07Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_140_90_ltfu_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 130 AND diastolic < 80 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_130_80_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 130 AND diastolic < 80 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_130_80_ltfu_under_care


might not be required

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T11:52:17Z

app/models/reports/region_summary_schema.rb

+      region_period_cached_query(__method__, with_ltfu: with_ltfu) do |entry|
+        slug, period = entry.slug, entry.period
+        denominator = with_ltfu ? adjusted_diabetes_patients_with_ltfu[slug][period] : adjusted_diabetes_patients_without_ltfu[slug][period]
+        numerator = dm_patients_with_controlled_bp_140_90(with_ltfu: with_ltfu)[slug][period]


Do we need to calculate with_ltfu here?
In all the other charts, "with_ltfu" is used to include the lost to follow up patients in the denominator only.
Adding this in the numerator seems counter-intuitive. Patients who are ltfu - will never qualify BP controlled indicator because they should have atleast one visit in the past 3 months - which implies they are not ltfu.
We only calculate the rates based on a different ltfu denominator, because then the percentages would change.

We should include the LTFU toggle option here as it's a denominator change.
With LTFU shows all patients assigned, without showing patients under care, which is more accurate.
This pattern follows the design for the outcomes section of the dashboard (Controlled, uncontrolled, missed), where only the denominator values change aswell.

Yes, only the denominator should have the ltfu change, the numerator remains same in both case (with or without ltfu).

Okay, I will remove this from the numerator.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T11:52:25Z

app/models/reports/region_summary_schema.rb

+      region_period_cached_query(__method__, with_ltfu: with_ltfu) do |entry|
+        slug, period = entry.slug, entry.period
+        denominator = with_ltfu ? adjusted_diabetes_patients_with_ltfu[slug][period] : adjusted_diabetes_patients_without_ltfu[slug][period]
+        numerator = dm_patients_with_controlled_bp_130_80(with_ltfu: with_ltfu)[slug][period]


same as above

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-20T11:55:34Z

app/models/reports/region_summary_schema.rb

+      else
+        values_at("adjusted_dm_bp_140_90_under_care")
+      end
+    end


just a suggestion to use tertiary operator, reads better
field = with_ltfu ? "adjusted_dm_bp_140_90_ltfu_under_care" : "adjusted_dm_bp_140_90_under_care" values_at(field)

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:26:51Z

app/models/reports/region_summary.rb

      adjusted_fasting_bs_over_300_under_care
      adjusted_hba1c_bs_over_300_under_care
+      adjusted_dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care
+      adjusted_dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care


We probably don't need this. A patient can either be under_care or ltfu.
We anyways don't need this value because this value will be used as a numerator for this chart, which doesn't include ltfu patients.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:27:02Z

app/models/reports/region_summary.rb

+      adjusted_dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care
+      adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care
+      adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care
      diabetes_total_appts_scheduled


same as above

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:30:04Z

app/models/reports/repository.rb

      diabetes_missed_visits_rates
      visited_without_bs_taken_rates
+      dm_controlled_bp_140_90_rates
+      dm_controlled_bp_130_80_rates


We probably need dm_controlled_bp_140_90_with_ltfu_rates and dm_controlled_bp_130_80_with_ltfu_rates here

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:32:36Z

db/structure.sql

-            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE (reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state = 'lost_to_follow_up'::text)) AS diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE (reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state = 'lost_to_follow_up'::text)) AS diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up,
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state = 'under_care'::text) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (140)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (90)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state IN ('under_care'::text, 'lost_to_follow_up'::text)) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (140)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (90)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,


we don't need this value.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:32:59Z

db/structure.sql

+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state = 'under_care'::text) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (140)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (90)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state IN ('under_care'::text, 'lost_to_follow_up'::text)) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (140)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (90)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state = 'under_care'::text) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (130)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (80)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care,
+            count(DISTINCT reporting_patient_states.patient_id) FILTER (WHERE ((reporting_patient_states.htn_care_state IN ('under_care'::text, 'lost_to_follow_up'::text)) AND (reporting_patient_states.months_since_visit < (3)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic < (130)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic < (80)::double precision) AND (reporting_patient_states.systolic IS NOT NULL) AND (reporting_patient_states.diastolic IS NOT NULL))) AS dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care


we don't need this value.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:34:16Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'lost_to_follow_up') AS diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up,
+
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,


we don't need this value.

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:34:30Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 140 AND diastolic < 90 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state = 'under_care' AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 130 AND diastolic < 80 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care,
+               COUNT(distinct(patient_id)) FILTER (WHERE htn_care_state IN ('under_care', 'lost_to_follow_up') AND months_since_visit < 3 AND systolic < 130 AND diastolic < 80 AND systolic IS NOT NULL AND diastolic IS NOT NULL) AS dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care


aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:35:07Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up AS adjusted_diabetes_patients_lost_to_follow_up,
+
+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,


aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:35:16Z

db/views/reporting_facility_states_v12.sql

+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_under_care,
+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_140_90_ltfu_under_care,
+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_130_80_under_care,
+adjusted_diabetes_outcomes.dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care AS adjusted_dm_bp_below_130_80_ltfu_under_care,


aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T09:37:22Z

spec/models/reports/region_summary_schema_spec.rb

+        expect(schema.dm_controlled_bp_130_80_rates[facility_1.region.slug]["Mar 2020".to_period]).to eq(25)
+        expect(schema.dm_controlled_bp_130_80_rates(with_ltfu: true)[facility_1.region.slug]["Mar 2020".to_period]).to eq(25)
+      end
+    end


would be nice to have specs around 140_90_with_ltfu_rates and 130_80_with_ltfu_rates

aagrawalrtsl · 2026-01-21T13:17:49Z

app/models/reports/region_summary_schema.rb

+
+    def dm_controlled_bp_130_80_with_ltfu_rates
+      dm_controlled_bp_130_80_rates(with_ltfu: true)
+    end


do we need these methods. My understanding is that we can get ltfu rates by just calling dm_controlled_bp_130_80_rates(with_ltfu: true)
I could not find where dm_controlled_bp_140_90_with_ltfu_rates and dm_controlled_bp_130_80_with_ltfu_rates are called

Thanks for pointing this out. These are no longer needed, I missed removing them earlier. I will clean this up.

sc-17708 add backend support for DM patients with controlled BP card

bbec1ab

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl changed the base branch from master to dm-dashboard-new-controlled-bp-statin-cards January 15, 2026 03:25

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl changed the title ~~Sc 17708~~ Draft: Sc 17708 Jan 15, 2026

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl added 2 commits January 16, 2026 15:44

fix spec

63fba40

spec fixes

fe9f26b

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from jamiecarter7 January 16, 2026 14:20

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl changed the title ~~Draft: Sc 17708~~ Sc 17708 Jan 16, 2026

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl added 2 commits January 19, 2026 12:45

sc-17708 minor lint changes

051be58

lint changes

183363f

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from a team January 19, 2026 07:22

aagrawalrtsl reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

sc-17708 presist DM controlled BP metrics in reporting_facility_state…

609bdd2

…s v12

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from aagrawalrtsl January 20, 2026 08:03

sc-17708 add missing DM BP fields to region_summary_spe

6d0f1f5

aagrawalrtsl reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

create reporting matview without data and remove LTFU from numerator

fe38a75

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from aagrawalrtsl January 21, 2026 04:44

aagrawalrtsl reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl added 2 commits January 21, 2026 16:28

removed LTFU variants from DM controlled BP metrics and add explicit

dda4544

fix spec files

411e31f

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from aagrawalrtsl January 21, 2026 11:49

aagrawalrtsl reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl added 2 commits January 21, 2026 19:09

removed unnecessary LTFU variants from dm controlled BP

52dfb10

removed LTFU reference from spec

cd0ac37

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl requested a review from aagrawalrtsl January 21, 2026 13:51

Sc 17708 #5753

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Sc 17708 #5753

Conversation

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl commented Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Because

This addresses

Test instructions

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aagrawalrtsl Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jamiecarter7 Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aagrawalrtsl Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Gyan-Gupta-Rtsl commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aagrawalrtsl Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jamiecarter7 Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aagrawalrtsl Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading