ORIGINAL COMPANY-CONTEXT PRACTICE
Group duplicate device issue reports without losing evidence
Original practice scenario: A hypothetical medical-technology support system receives the same device issue from a distributor, a service technician and a customer. Design record linkage and review.
Written for independent practice using company context; this is not a verified question from a company interview.
A REASONED APPROACH
Model answer.
Preserve original reports and make potential linkage a separate, reversible decision. Similar descriptions can refer to one incident or several distinct incidents; deduplication must not erase evidence.
Work through it
- Store source report identity, device identifier where available, event window and structured symptoms, minimizing personal information in matching features.
- Use deterministic exact matches first, then flag uncertain candidate pairs with explainable evidence and reviewer-controlled merge decisions.
- Maintain an incident group with member reports and linkage history, allowing split corrections and recalculating counts without rewriting the original submissions.
Tradeoffs to discuss
- Aggressive matching reduces duplicate review work but risks combining independent incidents; conservative matching preserves distinctions while increasing workload.
Common pitfalls
- Do not use a shared device model or generic complaint phrase as sufficient proof of the same event.
- This technical workflow must not substitute for applicable medical-device reporting or clinical assessment requirements.